Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Terrorist Activities

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Army, UDR, RUC, RUC Reserve and the general public, have been killed, and how many have been injured, by terrorist action in Northern Ireland during the third quarter of 1975.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): In the third quarter of 1975, as a result of the security situation, four members of the Army were killed and 56 injured; two members of the UDR were killed and two injured; two members of the RUC were killed and 40 injured; no members of the RUC Reserve were killed, but 12 were injured; and 59 civilians were killed and 652 injured.

Mr. Molyneaux: On behalf of my colleagues I express condemnation of those who have committed these appalling crimes, and express sympathy to all who have suffered, but is the right hon. Gentleman fully satisfied that the security forces are in no way prevented by the so-called cease-fire from safeguarding their own lives and the lives of others?

Mr. Rees: In every possible way the security forces must take steps to look after themselves. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed the figures that were given in a Written Answer the day before yesterday, namely, that 950 people have been charged to go through the courts—116 people charged with murder and 75 with attempted murder. In that group of 950 are members of all the para-

military organisations on both sides of the community.

Mr. Gow: What evidence does the Secretary of State have to show that there has been any return to terrorism by any of the 360 detainees whom he has released since December of last year?

Mr. Rees: A very small number—I am not making a point of it—have been charged with terrorist offences. As they have yet to go through the courts I think it better that I should not refer to individual cases, but the number is under 10. There is undoubtedly evidence, and knowledge on the part of the security forces, that some of those who have been released are back with the organisations to which they belonged. That is equally true of the nearly 300 people who have been released from prison after being sentenced. Exactly the same thing applies. Over the year, approximately 2,000 people have been interned and detained. If the policy had been harder both before and during my time, the figure could have been a good deal larger. The plain fact is that a sizeable number of people support the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.

Convention

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Convention.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the Constitutional Convention.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I understand that several of the parties in the Convention have tabled draft reports for discussion, and that the Convention is meeting today to decide which of these drafts to debate. The Chairman has told me that the Convention expects to complete its final report by 7th November, the date on which the Convention will automatically cease to sit under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. There will therefore be no need for me to extend its life.

Mr. Farr: In view of the recent initiative by some members of the Vanguard Party, if a majority report is received from the Convention will the right hon. Gentleman consider sending it back, to see whether it is possible to hammer out a


unanimous recommendation in the months that lie ahead during the extension period?

Mr. Rees: I understand the difficulties for hon. Members when I speak in this way, but I think it would be better for me to see the nature of the report that I receive from the Convention before making any comment about what I might do on receiving it. I must indicate to the House that I see a continuing political dialogue taking place in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When we recall the gloom that surrounded the opening of the Convention, is it not a hopeful sign that all parties have shown so much forbearance and good will in pursuit of an acceptable constitution? Should we not acknowledge the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Robert Lowry?
Secondly, is the time now coming when Convention members, who are so often beseiged by constituents with problems and opinions, will have access to Ministers and will be enabled to supplement the diligent efforts of Ulster Members in the House?

Mr. Rees: I add my words of praise to all those in the Convention, including the Chairman, who has played such a valuable part in the Convention's proceedings. What I must be absolutely insistent about is that those elected to the Convention were elected to consider the future government of Northern Ireland. They are not there to usurp the position of elected Members to this House, to whom I am responsible. I feel very strongly about that. On the other hand, I understand the feelings of Convention members in Northern Ireland. In a limited way I have asked the Ministers who work with me to take due notice of their feelings. I return to my first point, namely, that the Convention was not elected to take the place of the House of Commons.

Mr. Fitt: My right hon. Friend has said that the life of the Convention will terminate on 7th November. Is he prepared to grant an extension? Will he tell us what the situation will be if the report from the Convention is brought to this House some time in November? When will the House be given the opportunity to debate the report and to pass an opinion?

Mr. Rees: Without wishing to shelter behind the reply that the question of time for debates is not a matter for me, all I can say is that the House will have to consider the report. That much is clear. The Government and I will need a period of time to consider it. I have said that the report will come to the House. That is its purpose. I hesitate to use the words, because I find that they have a different meaning in law, but on the night of 7th November at midnight the Convention will be dissolved. It has the same sort of meaning as prorogation, I should add, but it will be dissolved. Whether it is called back is a matter for me. I must have an open mind on that. In the shorter period, I also have to take into account what happens to the Convention members when the Convention is dissolved and there is no chance of their meeting. I am considering all of those points. It will be better for me to say more when I have had the report.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about this matter and try to make an early announcement about the extension of the life of the Convention? It is important that after 7th November there should be a Convention in which members can consider the comments which this House may wish to make on any report or reports presented by the Convention.

Mr. Rees: I understand the point. I must make it clear, using the words in the Act, that at midnight on 7th November the Convention will be dissolved. I take the point about those who are elected and what will happen to them in the period before we may or may not go back to them. I am sensible of the point, but I do not think I should comment until I see the nature of the report.

Security

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in the Province.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I explained to the House in my statement on 16th June, in past months there has been a change in the nature of violence in Northern Ireland which has primarily taken the form of sectarian outrages and gangsterism from both sides of the community. Following a series of incidents involving and, indeed, claimed by the UVF, I proscribed that organisation at midnight on 3rd October. In recent weeks, however, there has been a succession of violent incidents for which the Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility. During this whole period, the activities of the security forces have been related to the level and nature of violence. They have, for example, been particularly active in South Armagh, in response to the level of incidents in that area. The security forces have met with considerable success in bringing those responsible before the courts. So far this year, 950 persons have been charged with serious terrorist offences, including 116 with murder, 75 with attempted murder, 368 with firearms offences and 76 with explosives offences. The number of convicted prisoners has this year increased by 437—a net increase of 25 per cent.

Mr. Mather: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he has given us, and those published yesterday, are encouraging and show that our security forces deserve congratulations, as does the right hon. Gentleman? Is he also aware that the situation on the ground is sometimes rather different from the picture one gets from mere figures? Does he agree that, since the ceasefire began in February, South Armagh has become virtually autonomous? Is he aware that the people there, Catholic and Protestant, are in urgent need of protection? Can he say what representations have been received from the local people and what new instructions have been given to the security forces to restore law and order south of the 46 grid line?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks. I shall see that they are brought to the notice of the security forces—in particular, the police, who have done an extraordinarily good job over the months. I know that the Army will not mind my saying that, because the better the police are at their job the less necessary is the Army. The

short answer to the point about South Armagh is that it is a curious part of Northern Ireland. Like so many things in Northern Ireland, one has to start not in the last six months but a long way back. The violence in South Armagh is not new. It was greater a year or two ago, certainly as reflected by the number of soldiers killed.
I must take the advice of the Army on this matter. It is my job to indicate the need to protect the people of South Armagh. It is not my job to be a military tactician. On such matters I take the advice of the Director of Military Operations, who is aware of the problem.

Mr. Goodhart: Since splinter groups from the various terrorist organisations now seem to be ignoring the cease-fire altogether, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the cease-fire limitations on intelligence-gathering by the security forces are being lifted? Will he also give an assurance that if the police want to charge suspected terrorists under the conspiracy laws, political pressure will not be brought to prevent them from doing so?

Mr. Rees: My advice to the hon. Member is not to believe all he reads. The only instruction which I have given to the police this year is that I am not signing interim custody orders. I am not detaining. I do not interfere with the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions over the charging of persons. It must be for them to decide. I have never interfered in that matter, and I would not now. The law is the law, and it must be carried out. As for the point about splinter groups, there are new organisations and new names. As fast as one has learned the meaning of one set of initials, the titles are changed. It is a matter of going through the courts. Detention is a valuable deterrent under some circumstances, but this is very much a matter for the courts, and for evidence. As for intelligence-gathering on a consistent everyday basis in the streets, I am content with the operations which are directed to that end in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: Is it still the intention of my right hon. Friend to end detention before Christmas and to use every available method to bring before the normal courts those against whom charges can be brought?

Mr. Rees: I hope I have indicated my policy today by speaking about the growth in the size of the prison population—the number of convicted prisoners—and the large number of persons being charged by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Releases from detention have gone on over the years. I have to set against this those who are charged through the courts. I have to take each case into account, and I have to take account of the advice given to me on the question whether there is danger to the general public. I must weigh that up. I want to end detention. I believe that the best way is for people to go through the courts. I have discovered that I get no criticism in the Catholic or Protestant communities if men go through the courts. Once there is detention, much as I know what I am doing, people do not believe me.

Mr. Powell: With regard to the incident centres, will the Secretary of State indicate from what actions or kinds of action the security forces refrain, according to whether responsibility for a particular outrage is claimed or disavowed by the IRA?

Mr. Rees: With regard to the incident centres for which I am responsible, the answer is given straight away. Often, when I look at the report, I find that it is said that this is a matter for the police or the security forces. It is not a question of changing the policy of the security forces as a result of information that comes through. What is of value from time to time is a clear indication of who is responsible, and it is useful for us to know, in this interim way—as happens sometimes—the feelings in the community and the misunderstandings concerning matters which might look right from Stormont Castle or from Lisburn. There is sometimes a misunderstanding in the community about what is being done and, so far, I think that the incident centres have been of value.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I understand that 174 civilians have been killed since the beginning of the cease-fire. That is as high a figure as for 1972. In that situation, and in view of the grim toll of deaths among Service men and policemen, will the Secretary of State say what he thinks the cease-fire has achieved that would not have been achieved if the same level of

security had been maintained as existed in 1974? In terms of sectarian gangsterism, will the Secretary of State say how effective the RUC's A Squad has been?

Mr. Rees: As hon. Members will know, a few days ago I published some figures which I thought might be useful in respect of this matter. There has been a change in the nature of violence, although there has been some return to the old style of violence in recent weeks.
As much as I am prepared to lay at the door of the Provisional IRA anything that it does, the sectarian murders do not merely involve Republican organisations. In this respect the score weighs more heavily on so-called Loyalist groups, and that cannot be put at the door of the Provisional IRA's cease-fire. It is a changing situation, and in it I am convinced that we must respond to the nature of the violence.
I am heartened by the reports I receive concerning the minority community's feeling about my policy on detention, and the reaction coming from them now in terms of giving information to the police, and so on—reports which I have received from many people.
There are hard areas, and murderers, on both sides. I am not giving a message of hope; I am saying that this development is interesting and that we all ought to take into account the changed nature of the violence and the points that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) raised earlier.

Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend note that over the many years in which I have been interested in this problem I have had only two letters—both before direct rule—complaining about conviction, but that since detention has begun to be phased out I have not had one complaint at all about any conviction that has gone through the ordinary courts of law? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is significant, in view of the fact that I have correspondence from both communities on these matters? Will he, therefore, continue with his policy of using the courts and legal procedures, and get rid of an iniquity which can affect both communities and, on many occasions, cause great suspicion of the policy of Her Majesty's Government and those who seek peace?

Mr. Rees: I agree fully with my hon. Friend. It is sometimes easy to try to share one's difficulties. But I must say that if there is a return to the day-to-day violence and the bombing in the middle of towns and villages around Belfast, with activities by brigades and battalions on a consistent scale, I am afraid that the use of normal methods, through the police, will not be enough. Whether there is a return to detention is a matter for those who perpetrate outrages. Her Majesty's Government do not want to return to detention; they want to end detention. Whether or not it was right or wrong to have detention in the first instance, it was a response to urban guerrilla warfare and to the 15,000 injured and the 1,500 dead in the Province. I do not want to return to it. I have given an earnest of my intention, but other people can play their part in that, as well.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the net increase in strength of the RUC and RUC Reserve, respectively, in the first three quarters of this year compared with the same three quarters of 1974.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the first nine months of 1975 the strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve increased by 195 and 1,034 respectively. The corresponding increases in 1974 were 100 and 156.

Mr. Powell: Does the Secretary of State not take limited encouragement from the improvement which these figures show? Wil he nevertheless not rest satisfied with the present rate, and use every method to increase it, especially a more rapid processing of applications to join the RUC, within the limits of what is necessary for security and efficiency?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a limited success. The numbers are very good. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is a very good advertising campaign in the newspapers of Northern Ireland. I am not saying that there is a great pool of people waiting to join the RUC, but our success rate in Northern Ireland is better than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
It sometimes causes trouble if we talk of the withdrawal of soldiers, but I should be very happy to see fewer soldiers in Northern Ireland and an increased police force, because that would be a measure of success. That is what I want to see. We shall do all we can to speed the processing of applications.

Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind the importance of achieving in the RUC a proper balance representing the communities in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State say what assistance he is getting from the representatives of the minority, elected and otherwise, to encourage members of the Roman Catholic community to join the RUC?

Mr. Rees: I have had brought to my notice by an hon. Member a letter in a newspaper the other night from a member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. Much as I appreciate letters and overt calls to support the police, I have also been very heartened to be told increasingly by people of the growing support for the police. The image—not the best word to use—is changing. It is a new police force. Half of the force has come in only in the past two years. There is a change taking place. I do not mean that success will come by tomorrow, but I am heartened at this change. All sides of the community are increasingly supporting the RUC.

Mr. Neave: I join in the tribute that the Secretary of State has paid to the excellent results obtained by the RUC, but will the Secretary of State confirm words that he has previously used, that policing is vital to the future of Northern Ireland? Is he aware that we on the Conservative benches are pleased to hear that progress has been made in getting more public and political support for the RUC? Will he give further details than he has so far about progress towards getting the RUC into areas of lawlessness?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the hon. Member's support on the point that it is vital to have more policing. In walking around a hard area the other afternoon I saw it in a different light—but it is not a matter of putting a vanload of police here or there, or talking of being in a particular area, and of what a good job has been done. The important thing is acceptance in the area, and I am sure


that this can be achieved only slowly. It will have to be done against the complete opposition of the Provisional IRA and other groups. I should add that it has been brought to my notice that in one so-called hard Loyalist area the police have not been well received either, but it is of a rather different historical nature. It is a slow job. It goes with political advance. We shall have to see what happens in the long run.

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the strength and utilisation of the RUC reserve.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): Since the announcement in September 1974 about the expansion of the RUC Reserve, the strength has increased from 2,614 to 4,894. This is encouraging, and I hope that the momentum will continue. Operational control is a matter for the Chief Constable but I have no reason to suppose that the Reserve is not being used to best advantage.

Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind the comments of the Secretary of State about the importance of the RUC and the RUC Reserve, is the Minister aware that in many police stations in my constituency the Reserve is totally inadequately equipped, not only in weaponry but in transportation and communications, to play a real part in the general security situation? If I give him a list of these police stations will he take action to redress that balance?

Mr. Moyle: I am certainly willing to look at a list of stations and an alleged list of deficiencies. However, operational control is a matter for the Chief Constable. He can ask for equipment, and it will be provided.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister agree that the morale of the Reserve and the RUC itself would be enhanced by the retention of Sir Jamie Flanagan, the first Roman Catholic chief constable? Although I appreciate that the Secretary of State cannot direct the police authority to keep Sir Jamie, will the Minister indicate to the police authority that it would be desirable to retain the services of a man who has won the support and respect of all sections of the community and the confidence of the police force?

Mr. Moyle: We are aware that Sir Jamie Flanagan has won the confidence of the police and the community generally. He has been an effective chief constable. I am happy to pay tribute to him. However, the appointment of a chief constable is a matter for the police authority, which is jealous of its functions, and rightly so.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are fed up with people being referred to as Catholic policemen, Protestant policemen, Catholic soldiers, and Protestant soldiers, and that we want policemen who carry out impartial law and are not regarded as the tool of politicians, of whatever party?

Mr. Moyle: I am sure that the police authority will take cognisance of my hon. Friend's remarks. All my remarks about Sir Jamie Flanagan were in the context that he was a good policeman.

Mr. Marten: Did the Minister notice, in the Belfast newspapers yesterday, an appeal by Councillor Donnelly that Catholics should join the RUC? As Councillor Donnelly is a member of the SDLP, would it not be a good idea if a few more leaders of that organisation made similar appeals?

Mr. Moyle: I noted and read the article. I am pleased to have expressions of support for the RUC from all sections of the community.

Mr. Fitt: Does my hon. Friend recognise the crucial importance of having a police force or police service in Northern Ireland every member of which has the confidence of the community? Will he accept that the present chief constable in Northern Ireland has the full support of that community, right across the political and religious divide?

Mr. Moyle: I am sure that the police authority will take note of those remarks.

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, following the announcement by his right honourable Friend the Home Secretary of proposals for an independent element in the procedure for complaints against the police, he will announce proposals in respect of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Moyle: The Northern Ireland working party on procedures for investigating complaints against the police is


expected to report in the near future, and when my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to study its proposals he will, no doubt, make a statement.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister tell the House whether the working party has received oral submissions of evidence, whether it is still open to receive submissions of evidence, or whether it is, as his remarks suggest, almost at the point of writing its report? In view of the importance that has already been attached, in Question Time today, to restoring confidence in the police, does the Government recognise, as the Gardiner Report recognised, the importance of taking serious and drastic measures to provide an adequate complaints procedure?

Mr. Hoyle: I shall deal with the last point first. We recognise the importance of an independent element in a complaints procedure in Northern Ireland, so that complaints are properly considered. When the working party was set up in January 1974 it advertised for written evidence. A number of submissions were received. I understand that no request was received to give oral evidence. I have no doubt that the working party will be prepared to receive evidence at any stage before it completes its report, although this is a matter for the working party.

Housing

Mr. Carson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the progress on the implementation of the main recommendations of the Porter Report.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. J. D. Concannon): In my statement to the House on 1st August I indicated that some of the report's recommendations were already being implemented by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider, in the light of the views expressed by interested parties, the content and timing of legislation on the other recommendations. He has, however, been impressed by the volume of evidence about the repair problem in the private rented sector and is urgently considering the introduction of a limited scheme to grant-aid essential repairs.

Mr. Carson: Is the Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive does not have the finance to maintain its present housing stock? How is it possible for the Executive to take over privately-owned houses and maintain them?

Mr. Concannon: It is a question of finding the necessary finance to deal with these problems. The answers to the hon. Gentleman's observations will not be available until the end of this month. We shall then consider the Porter Report, and I hope that a good discussion on housing will take place in Committee soon.

Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that it has not yet been possible for hon. Members to obtain a copy of the Porter Report? Will he take steps to ensure that copies are made available?

Mr. Concannon: Copies have been sent to the Northern Ireland Committees of all parties and, I think, to all interested hon. Members

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the proposed development at Lagmore and Poleglass, Dunmurry.

Mr. Concannon: In the light of comments received on the preliminary proposals and the serious housing problems in West Belfast, my right hon. Friend is considering what definite proposals should now be put forward.

Mr. Bradford: Does the Minister accept that a method of solving a housing problem which itself creates grave problems for farming families which have been long established in that area is not a good one? Does he agree that a great deal of land in West Belfast could be utilised for the families for whom this new development is largely intended?

Mr. Concannon: The position is not as the hon. Gentleman understands it. The housing position in West Belfast is acute. I shall use all the land that is available there for building. However, that will only scratch the surface of the problem of housing conditions in West Belfast.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that experiments in the establishment of new housing estates in Northern Ireland have so far not been particularly successful? Does he further agree that there is a great deal in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) and by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on a previous occasion, that many sites within the existing city boundaries are suitable for the development of smaller estates?

Mr. Concannon: Much will depend on the amount of land we can bring back into use after the new Belfast inner ring road has been completed. Housing conditions in Belfast are so acute that all the land I can find to build on in that area will only scratch the surface of the 30,000 who are already on the housing waiting list.

Mr. Fitt: I recognise that few sites in West Belfast could be used for rehousing, but does the Minister accept that I totally agree that West Belfast is bursting at the seams and that immediate action must be taken about the exploitation of this site before we can hope to tackle the problem?

Mr. Concannon: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support. I only wish that he and some of his hon. Friends had put it in writing when we asked for support, or for observations on the issue.

James Mackie and Sons Ltd. (Dispute)

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps, in consultation with the directors of James Mackie and Sons Ltd., Belfast, and the trade unions, to help achieve a settlement of the present dispute, which has kept the employees out of work for over seven weeks.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): The Conciliation Division of the Northern Ireland Department of Manpower Services is assisting the parties involved in the present unfortunate dispute. I am concerned to see a settlement concluded as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kilfedder: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this industrial

dispute has caused grievous hardships to workers in the firm of James Mackie and Sons Limited, and to their families. The strike has lasted for over six weeks. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider intervening in an attempt to resolve this problem?

Mr. Orme: Yes, I shall. I have taken steps this morning to invite both parties—the trade unions and the employers—to a meeting in Belfast tomorrow. I emphasise that this is a pure industrial dispute and is not in conflict with the Government's policy. It can be resolved. I hope that that will be possible following tomorrow's meeting.

Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind the excellent industrial relations record in Northern Ireland, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about the alleged breach of the social contract by workers at STC and Ulsterbus, who, by voluntary negotiation, arrived at a settlement in excess of the £6 limit?

Mr. Orme: That is another question, which must be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Carson: Does the Minister agree that, four weeks ago, through my personal intervention, he was prepared to meet the workers from Mackie, but that when the meeting was ready to take place it was called off as a result of the personal intervention of Mr. Andy Barr, a trade union representative? But for that, the Minister would have had this strike settled.

Mr. Orme: An industrial dispute such as the one which is the subject of the Question—a straight conflict on free collective bargaining between the trade unions and the employers—is something that a Minister cannot automatically resolve. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that Opposition Members are learning from their past mistakes over the Industrial Relations Act.
I met a deputation from the shop stewards briefly last Friday, when we had the economic conference in Northern Ireland, and Mr. Barr was present. Tomorrow, in bringing the two sides together, I hope to resolve the dispute. I believe that it can be resolved quickly

Tenants (Evictions)

Mr. Dunlop: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tenants have been ejected by private landlords in Northern Ireland over the past three months.

Mr. Concannon: Within the past three months, two peremptory orders to deliver possession have been issued by the Enforcement of Judgments Office on foot of ejectment decrees lodged by private landlords. In both cases possession of the premises concerned was handed over voluntarily by the former tenant after the order was made.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister ensure that the Housing Executive treats court orders for possession as adequate for the purposes of its points scheme, so that it is not necessary to proceed, for that purpose, to actual eviction?

Mr. Concannon: The procedure over eviction is similar to that in this country. Once a family has been evicted, the Area Health and Social Services Board, which must be given 48 hours' notice of any intended eviction, has a statutory duty to provide emergency accommodation if requested.

Mr. Dunlop: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the frustration and distress occasioned by the insistence of local managers of the Housing Executive on the application of the full rigour of the law? In other words, they demand the physical ejection of people from houses before they will entertain an application for rehousing in an emergency.
In many cases, relations between the private landlord and tenant are very good, and the landlords do not want to go to those extremes. How is it that we have local managers insisting on eviction? Could we not have a better and more amicable process?

Mr. Concannon: The situation in Northern Ireland is not very different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and in some respects it is much better. If I started to tell the hon. Gentleman about the legal steps taken for eviction I should bring down upon myself the wrath of Mr. Speaker and the House. I had better write to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Green Pound

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the green pound.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 15th October—[Vol. 897, c. 1360–71.]

Mr. Brotherton: Will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend that there continues to be grave concern in the farming industry about the valuation of the green pound, and that the sooner it is brought in line with the value of the £sterling, so that the farming community may have a fair return on their money, the better?

Mr. Strang: The Government have adjusted the green pound no fewer than four times over the past year. We are determined to win the battle against inflation and at the same time give our farmers the returns that they need in order to produce our food.

Mr. Torney: Does my hon. Friend agree that more purpose would be served for the farming industry if we completely renegotiated the Common Market agricultural policy and abolished the green pound?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is aware of the Government's policy of modifying the CAP, and using the stocktaking exercise as a means of achieving that. With farmers' costs increasing, whether we are in or out of the Community it is necessary to give them higher prices.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that the way in which the green pound works causes serious contortions in the whole system of the agricultural economy? Will he give an assurance that his Department is seriously considering various proposals that have been put for the introduction of automatic trigger arrangements to neutralise the adverse effects of the green pound discrepancies over the whole economy of our food-producing industry?

Mr. Strang: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but we need a green pound because we could not possibly have weekly adjustments in prices, not only because of the consumer effects but because of the impracticality of automatically adjusting support prices so often.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his engagements for 23 rd October.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for the remainder of 23rd October.

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 23 rd October.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 rd October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I chaired a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and will be holding further meetings with my ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Lamont: Why has the Prime Minister no plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England, who last week expressed his deep concern about the size of the Government's public sector borrowing requirement? Is it not as a direct consequence of our need to borrow these huge sums of money that our interest rates are now about 5 per cent. higher than in the United States or Western Europe? What does the right hon. Gentleman think that that will do to employment?

The Prime Minister: These Questions refer to the engagements that I have today, not to those that I do not have. I met the Governor at Downing Street on Monday.

Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his most important engagement today is Question Time in the House? Will he try to impress that

upon his Cabinet colleagues, especially my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who hardly ever appears at Question Time, and who has been given the important job of negotiating the oil participation? When will he conclude that important task? The negotiations have been going on for almost 12 months, and only five out of 20 companies have come to an agreement.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has answered many questions, but if there is dissatisfaction it is a matter for discussion through the usual channels. It does not arise out of Questions relating to my engagements today.

Mr. Michael Latham: The Prime Minister had a meeting with the Cabinet this morning, which he can hardly deny was an engagement today. Did he discuss with the Cabinet the question of public expenditure? If so, what did the Cabinet do about it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in the House, will know that questions about what is considered at Cabinet Committees are never allowed in the House.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sees Her Majesty later today, will he remind her—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Exactly the same convention applies with regard both to Cabinet meetings and to Audiences of Her Majesty. They are not subject to question in this House.

Mr, Skinner: As my right hon. Friend will be seeing Her Majesty this evening, will he consider the possibility of putting to her—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a supplementary question, it must not be directed to an Audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Skinner: Instead of going to the Palace, perhaps my right hon. Friend will do something much more useful, and take a trip down the corridor to the House of Lords—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: And stay there.

Mr. Skinner: —and take account of the antics being performed by the Tory geriatrics in that place? Will he also take


note of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is unable to keep her troops here late at night, and is using the other place in order to frustrate the will of a democratically-elected Government?

The Prime Minister: Apart from the fact that I am answering Questions only about engagements that I have today, there is, in respect of the House of Lords and in respect of the attendance and other performances of Conservative Members, no ministerial responsibility, I am happy to say.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister today take action on the report of the Price Commission which is out today and which shows very graphically that price increases in the nationalised industries are far greater and are occurring far faster than in the private sector, and that this has nothing to do with the reduction of the deficit, which is slightly higher now that it was? Will he therefore take time to point out to the public what a bad bargain they are getting from the nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister: I am interested that the right hon. Lady, in her study of this matter—which does not arise out of my engagements today, but I shall do her the courtesy of replying to her question—has not drawn attention to the many other very interesting facts in the report. Perhaps, at subsequent Question Times, she will take the opportunity of doing so. It was, of course, the policy of her Government—a policy from which she has not yet so far dissociated herself, and which was announced on 17th December 1973 in peremptory terms by the then Chancellor, who is no longer with us—that the publicly-owned industries should set charges at a level to reflect expenses and costs. We are seeing that this is done, and the right hon. Lady is trying to make capital out of the fact that we are carrying out policies to which she was committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOUTH

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Louth.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he were to visit Louth he would find an overwhelming majority of the electorate who believe that capital punishment should be reintroduced for crimes of terrorism? Will he therefore afford us time to debate this matter again at the earliest possible opportunity? Will he give a lead to the House and to the nation by saying that he has now changed his mind and is himself in favour of capital punishment for these crimes?

The Prime Minister: I have made clear, in relation to questions whether I will visit particular places, that it is not my task to go around Conservative constituencies finding out what people think because their views are not adequately represented by their own Members in this House. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), with his long experience in this House, will know that over very many years all decisions in this House on capital punishment have been left to a free vote of right hon. and hon. Members. There seems no reason to change that. It is only a very short time since we had a debate in this House and since a clear decision was taken on a free vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to have an official meeting with the Taoiseach.

The Prime Minister: I expect to meet the Taoiseach at the next European Heads of Government meeting in Rome on 1st and 2nd December.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I welcome that reply. Is the Prime Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and I will be seeing the Taoiseach in Dublin tomorrow? May we, in so doing, humbly convey from this House an expression of its admiration for the courageous and determined efforts being made in the Irish Republic against the atrocious terrorism which is the common enemy of us all, on both sides of the Irish border and the Irish Sea?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and from all I have heard of visits to Northern Ireland by the hon. Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), I know that they will


show the same sense of responsibility south of the border as they do on their visits north of the border. I believe that their visits have been extremely helpful, and I am sure that this visit will be, too. Certainly, while we are always trying to improve relations, particularly on border matters and such things, we in this House know the great agony that the Taoiseach and his colleagues are going through in this matter. They know, as their police know, that any help that we can give, arising from the parallel problems we face here, we shall give.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when he meets the Taoiseach many people will wish him to congratulate the Taoiseach on the firm attitude he has taken on terrorism in the Republic and also on the particular case which is exciting all our imaginations and anxieties at the moment? Will he remember to inform the Taoiseach that settlement of the Northern Ireland problem is not an issue which exists only within this island or within our country, but that it is a question, also, of a common frontier and the common interest that we have in achieving peace within that island?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for the tributes he has paid to the Taoiseach and to the relations which exist and have existed between successive British Governments and the Irish Government during these very difficult times. It certainly is the case, to use the phrase invented by the previous Government, that there is an Irish dimension in these matters. However, the Southern Irish Government have shown great moderation and great responsibility on all questions concerning Northern Ireland.

Mr. Churchill: Since the Irish American community is today the principal source of finance for terrorism in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman, when he next meets the Taoiseach, please convey to him the thanks of this House and of the British people for the very courageous and stout-hearted stand of successive Ministers of the Dublin Government when they have visited the United States? They have made absolutely clear to the Irish American community where these resources go, and our concern that the

political leaders of that community have not thus far had the courage to speak up in similar terms.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member. What he said is right, and justified by what has been said in North America by representatives of the Irish Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I made the point when we met the Foreign Affairs Committee of both Houses of Congress and pressed this issue strongly on them. I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House have pressed this issue in relation to the United States and one or two other places. It is help with money and munitions that is perpetuating terrorism in these islands.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH OFFICE

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to appoint a further Minister to the Scottish Office.

The Prime Minister: I announced the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) as an Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office on 12th September.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that in spite of that the Secretary of State for Scotland is fast losing the confidence of the people of Scotland? Is he aware, too, that when in opposition the Secretary of State claimed that when Scottish unemployment reached 100,000 the honourable course for a Scottish Secretary was to resign? Does he know that the right hon. Gentleman is now supervising an economy where 120,000 are unemployed and where the figure is rising at the rate of over 1,000 per week? In these circumstances, will he explain why the Secretary of State, in a full day's debate on Tuesday, was unable to give us any idea how much cash would be available to the much-publicised Scottish Development Agency in its first year?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member made exactly the same point about my right hon. Friend a year ago, after which there was a General Election in which the Tories were decimated.

Mr. Pardoe: Not by you.

The Prime Minister: We held our numbers extremely well. The Scots were looking for a decent Opposition, just as the people south of the border are today. Unemployment is serious, and it has been very fully debated in this House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) knows the consequences for many countries of the world recession and of the oil price rise. He will also know that at no time since statistics began to be collected has the ratio between unemployment in Scotland and that south of the boarder been so low as it is today.

Mr. Grimond: May we have an assurance that when the Government produce their White Paper on the future of Scottish government it will deal with the position of the Scottish Secretary and other Ministers, and with the Civil Service which serves them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it will.

Mr. Reid: Before considering the introduction of a further Scots Minister, will the Prime Minister study reports in The Times today and The Scotsman yesterday, which confirm widespread fears in Scotland that the Assembly Bill will be subject to delay and prevarication? In view of the Government's clear commitment to the people of Scotland that they will have a meaningful Assembly, will he take this opportunity to confirm that the Government intend to press ahead with the introduction of the Bill forthwith, after publication of the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Member that these matters will be fully dealt with in the White Paper. There is no ministerial responsibility for what may appear in the newspapers north or south of the border. At the moment, I am more concerned with seeing whether there is any means of saving a very good Scottish paper which is in danger of extinction.

BOMB EXPLOSION (KENSINGTON)

Sir B. Rhys Williams (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the bomb explosion in Kensington this morning.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Shortly before 9 a.m. this morning, a bomb placed under a car belonging to and parked outside the house of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) exploded. It killed a neighbour, Professor G. Hamilton Fairley, who was walking past the car at the time. A young woman was taken to hospital suffering from shock. No warning was given. Police inquiries are, of course, under way.
I am sure that the House will wish to join with me in expressing our sympathy to the family of Professor Hamilton Fairley and to all those who were close to the incident, including, of course, the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone. The current series of incidents which started while the House was in recess shows again the importance of continued vigilance by all members of the public. The police and the emergency services have behaved with great courage and efficiency in meeting the responsibilities placed upon them. But the task is not one for them alone. It demands the wholehearted co-operation of each of us to combat and certainly not to be intimidated by the viciousness of terrorism.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: May I join in the right hon. Gentleman's expressions of condolence to the family of Professor Hamilton Fairley and all who suffered in this outrage? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this was not, by the signs, merely a blind act of terrorism but a deliberate attempt on the life of a right hon. Member?

Mr. Jenkins: It would be rash to confirm or deny that statement at the present time. Clearly we are all aware and take note of the fact that this was close to our affairs in this House because of where it occurred. I do not think it would be wise to say more.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Fraser: May I thank the House and also thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said? I think we can all agree that every politician in this House, of whatever party, is at risk and that all parties are determined to extirpate terrorism, whatever its causes. Might I add a special tribute to my neighbour,


Professor Hamilton Fairley, who probably did more than any other man for cancer research in this country? It might be borne in mind by the public that this innocent victim was a distinguished man who had contributed more to the saving of human life than perhaps anyone in this House or in the whole medical profession.

Mr. Jenkins: I am sure the whole House will echo the moving tribute that the right hon. Member has paid to Professor Hamilton Fairley, who was a chance victim of this attack. The right hon. Gentleman's political and physical courage commands the admiration of us all.

Mr. Strauss: Has my right hon. Friend seen the story on the front page of today's Daily Express alleging that the Government have issued orders to the police through the Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions that there are to be no more conspiracy trials? The story goes on to say that this is frustrating the police in arresting and charging those whom they believe to be responsible for bomb outrages. Will my right hon. Friend comment on this grave allegation?

Mr. Jenkins: The story on the front page of today's Daily Express is inaccurate in fact, wholly misleading and, I fear, mischievous in inference. No pressure of any kind was brought by the Prime Minister, myself, any other Minister, the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to any of the matters referred to in the article. Distinguished counsel appearing for the prosecution was consulted by the Director of Public Prosecutions at a very early stage, and throughout the preparation of the case the Director's department fully concurred with and followed the advice which counsel gave.
There is indeed a most glaring contradiction on the front page. The article says in column 2 that there were to be no conspiracy charges and then in column 5 reports convictions on charges of conspiracy to murder.
In view of the grave allegations of political interference with the conduct of the prosecution, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General intends to make a full and detailed statement on the matter early next week. I would merely add at the moment that the article

appears to me to be one of the most false, irresponsible and malevolent Press reports I have ever seen.

Sir M. Havers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was the counsel charged with responsibility for the prosecution of those arrested for these offences? It was my decision and mine alone, without any pressure being applied from any quarter whatever or any consultation with the Attorney-General, who had appointed me to do this task, that led me to the decision, in consultation with my juniors and the Director of Public Prosecutions, that no charges other than those dealt with yesterday or pending should be brought. There was no influence of any kind on me, my team or the Director of Public Prosecutions. The article is totally false and irresponsible.

Mr. Jenkins: I note with respect the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman has thought it right to make to the House. I hope that, in view of that statement, the Daily Express will think it right to publish a complete withdrawal immediately, at the first available opportunity, and will give it equal prominence to that which it gave the story this morning.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we would like to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to the family of Professor Hamilton Fairley and that we are relieved that, perhaps purely by chance, the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) was spared? Does the Home Secretary agree that the convictions at the Old Bailey yesterday indicate that the police will spare no effort to track down and bring to justice those who commit terrorism? Would he also agree that, although we do not know what organisation was responsible, the police will depend on every piece of information from the public being transmitted to them urgently if we are to have the chance of bringing to justice those responsible?

Mr. Jenkins: I agree with the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. On the latter part, the police, as the House will recognise, in relation to this and other acts of terrorism, devote every possible effort to their task of tracking down the perpetrators. They have met with a substantial degree of success,


and that, I believe, will continue to be the case. It would be useful to them to receive all relevant information about this latest outrage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27TH OCTOBER—Debate on an Opposition motion on the National Health Service.
Motion relating to the Direct Grant Grammar Schools (Cessation Grant) Regulations.
TUESDAY 28TH OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Children Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 29TH OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Protection Bill.
THURSDAY 30TH OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Policyholders Protection Bill [Lords] and of the Local Land Charges Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 31ST OCTOBER—Motion on the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1975.
MONDAY 3RD NOVEMBER—Debate, until about 7 o'clock, on the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1974–75, on European Secondary Legislation.
Thereafter, debate on the Report of the Renton Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, Command No. 6053.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on Thursday of last week, as reported at col. 1587 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that the Chancellor would make a statement on the public borrowing requirement? When may we expect that statement?

Mr. Short: I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Lady has said. I have no knowledge of any statement which is intended to be made in the near future on this matter.

Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position on 3rd November concerning the debate on EEC legislation? Is it his intention to put down a substantive motion for action or is it to be a "take note" debate on the report?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. What I intend to do is bring the report before the House and put down two motions to give effect to the report of the Select Committee—two motions which, in effect, amend Standing Orders.

Mr. Hurd: What progress has the right hon. Gentleman made recently in arranging a scheme for submission to the House for the radio broadcasting of our proceedings?

Mr. Short: A Sub-Committee of the Services Committee is working very hard, and we hope to bring a recommendation to the House before very long on whether or not the scheme should continue.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: As many train services, especially around Watford, have been cut and bus services are practically non-existent in some areas near Watford, may I ask when we shall have a debate on transport?

Mr. Short: I seem to have heard that question before. As I have replied before, that is an appropriate subject for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. John Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in many parts of the House his announcement of only half a day's debate on the Procedure Committee's report will meet with grave dissatisfaction? This is a matter of infinite importance to the House's future conduct of its work, and to allow only that short time for debate seems manifestly inadequate. Will he please accept from me that those who have considered this report carefully believe that it would have been in the interests of the House previously to have considered it on a "take note" motion and only subsequently to have come forward with any amendments or motions?

Mr. Short: That would have been a much more leisurely way of doing it, and had we had unlimited time it would have been done in that way. I realise that this is compressing it rather, but there is one very urgent proposal in this


report which the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, wants put into effect immediately. If we do it this way, the Committee can of course be set up at the beginning of the new Session. Therefore, while this is compressing it, there is great advantage to the House in getting it over in this way.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the widespread fears and anxieties among shipbuilding workers, especially on the Tyne, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for Industry will be making a statement on that industry in the coming week?

Mr. Short: I know of no statement, but I shall certainly pass on to the Secretary of State what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of the debate on European legislation? Would it not be far better, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said, to have a full day's debate on a "take note" general discussion, so that the right hon. Gentleman could listen to what Parliament as a whole wanted and then draw up his resolutions to be placed before the House later? What he proposes is not the way to treat Parliament. I hope that he will not hurry this matter simply for the sake of getting it done by a given date.

Mr. Short: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman says that this is not the way to treat Parliament. This is the way that it is always done, so far as I am aware. All I am doing is giving the House the opportunity to decide and vote on recommendations of the Committee. I should have thought that that was very sensible.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I again draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 670, signed by myself and 71 other hon. Members, which seeks to draw to the attention of the House the problems and worsening situation in the textile industry?
[That this House, mindful of the continuing deterioration in the textile, clothing and footwear industries, urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate and direct steps to reduce the flow of imports of these goods, as recommended

by the TUC and agreed at the Labour Party conference.]
May I also ask my right hon. Friend to arrange a debate on international trade, so that we may discuss our obligations under GATT to low-cost supplier countries and express our concern for the need for some political commitment by low-cost supplier Governments to ensure that workers in those countries share in the benefits which accrue from this trade?

Mr. Short: I sympathise, of course, with my hon. Friend in this matter, but we are shortly to have an extended debate on the Queen's Speech. I should have thought that that was an appropriate subject for that debate. However, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Peter Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman kindly said last week that, if the British Government vetoed the European Commission's proposals on pollution, he would urge that a statement should be made, and as the British Government stopped agreement being reached, will he see that a statement is made before the Council of Ministers discusses the matter again in December?

Mr. Short: I believe that the Council of Environment Ministers is meeting on 6th December. We have not vetoed the proposal yet. I think that we should await that meeting to see what happens.

Mr. Willey: In view of our current difficulties, not only in shipbuilding, in the Northern Region, will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be an early debate on the affairs of the region?

Mr. Short: Certainly, Sir. I hope that the Regional Committee will be able to meet before the end of the spillover Session and I believe that it is the turn of the Northern Region. I shall be happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend and any other hon. Members from the region the terms of the motion.

Mr. Biffen: Referring to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a growing belief that our national finances are now so arranged that they can be resolved only by further recourse to foreign borrowing? Should that happen within the next week or two, will he give


an undertaking that the Chancellor will make a statement?

Mr. Short: That is entirely a matter for the Chancellor. I am sure that if anything like that occurred, the Chancellor would make a statement. In saying this, however, I am not suggesting that anything like that will occur in the next week or two.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: What consideration has my right hon. Friend now given to the urgent need for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage? If it is not possible to have it in the next couple of weeks, will he ensure that it will be debated early in the new Session?

Mr. Short: I cannot give an assurance that it will be debated in the near future, but I have taken on board the point that my hon. Friend has made previously and will certainly bear it in mind.

Sir David Renton: On what motion will the report of the Committee on the preparation of legislation be debated? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the chaotic state of our statute book, there will be surprise and some concern, both inside the House and outside, that that report is to be debated for only half a day? Would it not be better to meet the wishes of my right hon. and hon. Friends with regard to the first part of the day's business on 3rd November and so allow the debate on the report on legislation to have a whole day at some other time?

Mr. Short: I cannot see any prospect of finding more time. I gave an undertaking to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I would find some time to debate his excellent report before the end of this Session. That is why I have done it this way. I would be prepared to consider more time on that day, and perhaps I could talk to him about it.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging for statements to be made or for us to have a debate on the disturbing reports of possible deals with Japan and other countries under which lethal nuclear waste could be shipped to Britain for reprocessing and the possibility of this island becoming a nuclear waste dustbin? Since there is apprehension in the country, will he consider either a statement or a debate?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy very much shares the concern about this matter and he is considering whether the terms on which it is proposed that processing for other countries should take place in this country fully protect the safety and environmental interests of the United Kingdom. When he has completed that study, I think that we can then look at the matter.

Mr. Tugendhat: In view of the importance of the matters discussed with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and the enormous amount of Press publicity which has been attached to the agreements apparently reached with him and his delegation, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Foreign Secretary, or, indeed, the Prime Minister, will make a statement on this early next week?

Mr. Short: There is no intention at the moment of making a statement, but there was a long communiqué yesterday which I hope the hon. Member read carefully.

Mr. Torney: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that we have a debate on the Early-Day Motion dealing with restrictive practices legislation in the agricultural industry which affects that industry adversely? The motion has been signed by many hon. Members on both sides.
[That this House is concerned that existing legislation on restrictive trade practices is operating in agriculture in a way that Parliament never intended, that it inhibits particularly the development of agricultural co-operation and in so doing operates against the interests both of consumers and producers, that it deters collective action which is neither against the national interest nor of economic significance, that it places unfair constraints upon small producers, and that the application to agriculture of such legislation should be thoroughly and urgently re-examined.]

Mr. Short: I have seen the motion. I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend and the many hon. Members who have signed the motion, but I am sorry that I cannot find time for a debate on it in the near future. I will bear it in mind.

Mr. Pattie: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that we should have an


early debate on the White Paper on Better Services for the Mentally Ill?

Mr. Short: No, I cannot see any prospect of a debate in the near future. This is one of a number of subjects which I will keep in mind. If the opportunity occurs, we can perhaps talk about it.

Mr. Lee: How many extra working days have been added to the workload of this House as a result of adverse decisions made in another place? How much longer are we going to have to tolerate the situation? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are two Early-Day Motions on this matter, one calling for the abolition of the other place and the other calling for the abolition of its powers?
[That this House views with alarm the continued threat presented by the House of Lords to the democratic will of the Commons, considers that a second Chamber dominated by the hereditary principle is unacceptable in a democracy, notes the success of those Western democracies which have now established a single Chamber system, recognises the need to curtail unnecessary public expenditure, and therefore calls on the Government during the lifetime of the present Parliament to introduce legislation to abolish the House of Lords.]
[That this House mindful of the recent treatment of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill and the Industry Bill calls upon the Government to abolish the remaining legislative powers of the House of Lords.]
As we waste time discussing the decisions of the other place, can we not have another debate discussing its abolition?

Mr. Short: Off the cuff, I cannot say how many extra days we have now. Certainly at the end of this Session we shall have to sit down and take stock of the changing way in which the other place is behaving.

Mr. Peyton: In view of what has been said, I hope that the Leader of the House will consider splitting the two debates for Monday week on European legislation and on the general untidiness of modern legislation and give more time for both debates. I am grateful for his reply. I hope that he will discuss this through the usual channels.
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the Official Report for 16th October—column 1587—which reports a clear undertaking given by the Prime Minister that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a statement on public expenditure and on the borrowing requirement? In view of that undertaking, which was quite explicit, I hope that arrangements will be made for the Chancellor to make a statement.
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends to give time at an early date for a debate on the Report by the Select Committee on House of Commons Administration, which Committee was very ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley)?
Lastly, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what was said by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, with rather uncharacteristic cynicism, last week about the "Eagle" incident:
Let us get the dispute settled and then we can discuss principles."—[Official Report, 20th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 34.]
It would be wise if we were now to discuss the principles.

Mr. Short: It is always nice to discuss principles when we can find the time to do so. I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
As for the debates next Monday, I will certainly look at this. We are certainly prepared to discuss the matter through the usual channels. All that I am saying is that, if we want a debate on the report prepared by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), I can see no prospect of it if we take the whole day to discuss the procedure report. The two issues arising on the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure are relatively simple ones which I should have thought would have commended themselves to the whole House. However, we will look at the matter again.
I have nothing to add to what I said to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition about the point made about the Prime Minister.
I hope to find time for a short debate—perhaps half a day—before Christmas


on the report on the administration of the House of Commons.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend note the mounting anxiety in certain industries in Britain about increasing unemployment caused by the flood of imports and increasing penetration? Will he note that this anxiety has been reflected by the Trades Union Congress and by a three or four to one majority at the Labour Party conference and that many hon. Members have signed a motion to this effect?
[That this House, mindful of the continuing deterioration in the textile, clothing and footwear industries, urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate and direct steps to reduce the flow of imports of these goods, as recommended by the TUC and agreed at the Labour Party conference.]
In view of that, and as we are shortly to have a very important international conference on finance and trade, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and arrange a debate on trade policy and not have it wrapped up in the debate on the Queen's Speech?

Mr. Short: I will bear that in mind. The Government share the anxiety which my hon. Friend has expressed. However, the danger is of taking action which will make the position worse. The matter is under constant review. When the Government have anything further to say about it, there will certainly be a statement in the House.

Mr. Amery: May I follow up the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and West-minister, South (Mr. Tugendhat)? Is it not usual when conversations so important as those which have just taken place with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia have concluded, either at home or abroad, for the Government to make a statement? We all realise that there has

been a communiqué. However, is it not usual in matters of this importance for the Government to submit themselves to the House for cross-examination on the communiqué?

Mr. Short: No, I do not think so. We have a very distinguished visitor from Brazil here at the moment and very important discussions have taken place with him. There is a succession of visitors to this country from other countries. If a statement were made in the House about all of them we would have a succession of statements. I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) have said. I again point out that a communiqué was issued yesterday which was much fuller and longer than the normal communiqué after a visit of this kind.

Sir G. Howe: I apologise for returning to the matter, but it is of some importance. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has today told me that he never had it in mind to make any statement to the House about the borrowing requirement? How does it come about that last Thursday the Prime Minister told the House quite unequivocally that the Chancellor would be making a statement on that very subject? Does not the Leader of the House appreciate that it is wholly unsatisfactory for the Prime Minister to give a pledge of that kind and for him to try to brush it aside in this way?

Mr. Short: I am not brushing the matter aside. I wish that the right hon and learned Gentleman had listened to what I said. When the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition asked me this question I said that I would pass on what she said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This I will do.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a great deal to do today.

Orders of the Day — WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

OVERSEAS AID

'The Agency may with the consent of the Secretary of State enter into and carry out agreements with the Minister of Overseas Development under which the Agency act, at the expense of that Minister, as the instrument by means of which technical assistance is furnished by that Minister in the exercise of the power conferred by section 1(1) of the Overseas Aid Act 1966; and the Agency may, with the consent of both the Secretary of State and the said Minister, enter into and carry out agreements under which the Agency, for any purpose specified in the said section 1(1), furnish technical assistance in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom against reimbursement to them of the cost of furnishing that assistance.'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause has been introduced at the request of the Ministry for Overseas Development. Its purpose is to ensure that the Agency is able to make its skills and experience available to the Governments of overseas countries and other authorities and bodies in those countries if it should be invited to do so.
The House may like to know that parallel clauses were added to the Industry Bill and the Scottish Development Agency Bill.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The relevant section of the Overseas Aid Act 1966 empowers the Minister for Overseas Development to give
assistance, whether financial, technical or of any other nature…and such assistance, other than financial, may be provided free of charge or on such terms as to payment as the Minister may determine.
The purpose of the clause is obviously to ensure that the Agency is reimbursed if financial assistance is given to a country outside the United Kingdom through the Agency.
The Question we wish to ask, naturally, is whether the Government have some particular project in mind at this stage or whether the clause is being inserted simply to provide against that event. I do not think that a parallel clause is included in the Scotish Development Agency Bill, and this prompts me to ask what lies behind the insertion of this clause at this stage into this Bill.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Scottish Development Agency Bill has a parallel clause in it.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary.
There are many firms in Wales which could, and indeed do, give the sort of technical assistance required by an overseas country as envisaged in the 1966 Act. Presumably the Government think that the cross-subsidisation that would occur if the clause were operated by the transfer of money from overseas development funds to the Agency could be helpful to the Agency and the firms in which it might have an interest in Wales.
We would prefer the Agency to make a profit rather than simply be reimbursed for services rendered overseas. Otherwise we see no reason to oppose the inclusion of the clause, although we would assume that the Agency would have enough work to do at home without embarking on profitless activities abroad. However, perhaps this is taking too narrow a view.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In welcoming the proposed clause, may I ask the Under-Secretary to cast his mind back to the Committee stage, when I proposed a new Clause 2 designed to develop both an international and what one might call a regional structure for the Agency? At that time the Government rejected such proposals. The implication at the time was that there should not be any formal international aspects of the Agency.
Obviously we welcome any change which the Government adopt in this direction, but if they are thinking in terms of international dimensions for the Agency I should like to press on them the need for a greater formalisation of links between the Agency and possibly the Welsh Development Corporation, which


is doing such useful work in the international context.
We ought to be looking for contacts which might help us develop our industry—it is a two-way traffic—if we are having an involvement overseas. I welcome the clause so far as it goes, but I am surprised that it does pot go further.

Mr. Barry Jones: As the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said, the clause empowers the Agency, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to enter into and carry out agreements with the maximum of overseas development. I appreciate the view expressed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). I recollect his remarks in Committee. The clause empowers the Agency to provide assistance outside the official aid programme by entering into and carrying out, with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Minister for Overseas Development, agreements with overseas Governments and other authorities. The costs of furnishing technical assistance in such cases will be met by the authorities concerned.

Mr. Wigley: In having this link with overseas countries, if there were to arise from such a link the possibility of a two-way flow of information which would help us with the possibility of new markets, may I take it that the Agency would not be debarred from taking advantage of those opportunities?

Mr. Barry Jones: I am not able to respond in the way that the hon. Member would like me to on this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES OF AGENCY'S INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS

In each case where the Agency uses its powers under section 1(3)(c) to establish and carry on an industrial undertaking, the Agency shall be obliged to provide the management of the undertaking with a written statement of the financial objectives of that undertaking and in drawing up the statement, the Agency shall have regard to the desirability in its commercial activities, of obtaining a reasonable return on capital employed. A statement on the extent to which each such undertaking has achieved, exceeded or fallen short of the financial objective shall be included in the Annual

Report of the Agency.—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause is fairly closely related to Amendment No. 41—in that it seeks to tighten financial disciplines on the Agency. The clause seeks to ensure that the managements of companies set up by the Agency recognise that they have the duty to achieve commercial and not simply social targets.
In the Scottish debate on Tuesday the Minister said that the Scottish Development Agency would be expected to pay its way in its industrial functions, but during the Committee stage on this Bill Ministers made clear that they expect the Agency to establish businesses in places where private enterprise would not venture and that they intend the Agency to do things which private enterprise would not consider profitable. In Committee the Under-Secretary, as reported in column 67 of the Official Report, referred to Blaenau Ffestiniog and said that without these powers people saw no hope for the development of the area.
The Government clearly intend to indulge in direct job subsidy and to create jobs, not only because they will produce goods which can be sold on an economic basis in competition with goods produced elsewhere but because they hold, rightly or wrongly, that the creation or maintenance of jobs in a particular area is of itself good. They are saying that there is a duty on the Government to maintain jobs in a particular place, and for an unlimited period, although there may be no economic justification for private concerns doing so.
I do not propose to become involved in the merits or otherwise of that argument. I simply say that I would prefer a system in which the Government create conditions where business can prosper and that Governments have a duty to consider the social impact of too violent a change. Whatever one's views on these two different approaches, it cannot be denied that the first approach—the creation of jobs for social reasons—can produce interesting contradictions. To take the example of Anglesey, where unemployment is of the order of 14 per cent.—I see the right hon. Member for Anglesey


(Mr. Hughes) in his place—clearly, if this argument is right, the Government have a case for establishing factories which are not profitable commercially, but British Rail is facing the dilemma that due to a reduction of demand on its Irish Sea service and because of increased costs, including the cost of labour, it is having to consider the rationalisation of its enterprise and possibly some reduction in the jobs provided.
This is the kind of dilemma which clearly will arise if we have a State organisation on the one hand creating jobs for social reasons and on the other hand accepting economic disciplines such as are imposed on the shipping sector of British Rail because there is no subsidy there.
It must also be accepted, although, no doubt, there are Labour hon. Members who will not agree, that excessive unproductive Government expenditure creates inflation and, therefore, creates the conditions in which jobs are destroyed. There is a real danger that the managers of a company established in, for example, Blaenau Ffestiniog to produce goods which could be produced more cheaply in Birmingham would feel that they were subject to no financial discipline, that their sole justification imposed on them by the Agency was job creation and that the normal standards of efficiency did not apply, and they would feel under no obligation to produce a profit. In that case we are on the road to disaster, and we must somehow attempt to prevent it.
We seek to do that by laying down clear objectives which are known to management and which will in due course be known to Parliament and to the public. It is not very satisfactory, but, given the powers in the Bill, it is the best we can achieve. It is on that basis that I ask the House to give the clause a Second Reading.

Sir Raymond Gower: I wish to emphasise to the Minister that this proposed clause is in very moderate terms. Even if his first reaction might be to take a hostile look at it, I beg him to consider it in the following way.
The clause merely lays down that the Agency shall have regard to the desirability in its commercial activities of

obtaining a reasonable return on capital employed. This does not mean that it is mandatory on the Agency always to obtain a reasonable return. There may be special reasons why, in a certain case, it should not do so. The clause, however, provides for a fairly loose discipline—my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) used the word "discipline"—to be imposed on the Agency to ensure that it shall devote its attention to objectives which seem likely to succeed and to produce a return rather than to an objective which will not do so. In that sense, I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the principle of this modest and moderate clause.

Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and Barry (Sir R. Gower) are at least being consistent in their attitude, but I ask the House to reject the new clause even though, as the hon. Member for Barry said, it is put forward in a moderate manner. I hope that I can reassure Conservative Members, but may I first say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is doing a magnificent job in looking after his constituency, so I shall not be drawn by the examples which the hon. Member for Pembroke put before the House in relation to Blaenau Ffestiniog or Anglesey. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic and I want to try to reassure him and his hon. Friend the Member for Barry.
In exercising its functions under Clause 1, the Agency will be obliged by the Secretary of State to obtain a reasonable return on capital employed. This has been made clear right from the start of the Bill's passage through Parliament, and I take this opportunity to re-emphasise that. In this respect it will follow the National Enterprise Board, which is subject to a similar obligation.
This will mean that the Agency will not be in a position to give carte blanche to companies which it sets up under Clause 1. Any leeway that they are given to obtain a less than reasonable return on capital invested will have to be made up by other Agency companies or by particularly profitable investments under Clause. I cannot but think that the Agency will, as a matter of good management, give the directors of its companies the kind of guidance envisaged


here. I hope that I have said enough to reassure the Opposition.

Mr. Wigley: I am not sure whether the Minister was responding to one of the main features of the new clause—namely, the Agency's directives in each and every instance—or dealing with the generality of things. There will be general financial objectives for the Agency, but is the Minister saying that there will be specific objectives, as the Government see it, but without writing in these words? Will there be specific objectives both where concerns are expected to pay their way and in places such as Blaenau Ffestiniog and Llanberis where developments are needed that will not provide a commercial rate of return but where there is a good social reason for having them? Will the Agency tell a concern that it is not expected to get a commercial rate of return, or allow it even to have a negative return or a loss? Is that what the Minister has in mind?

Mr. Barry Jones: Overall, the Agency will seek, by good management, to get a reasonable return on capital. The hon. Gentleman comes from North-West Wales and he knows how to bowl a good googly of a question, but he will have to wait for the guidelines and further developments.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On the whole the Minister has replied helpfully, and I am grateful for that. I note his assurance that the Agency will be required to obtain a reasonable return on capital employed.
I noted the Minister's reply to the googly bowled at him by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). I hope that if there is a case where that requirement is not made, particular attention will be paid to the possible consequences on other businesses doing the same kind of thing elsewhere. We debated this matter in Committee, and I do not think that I need say any more about it now.
Amendment No. 41, to which we shall come in due course, seeks to lay down a rather different way of imposing the general discipline that I seek. Bearing that in mind, and in view of the assurance that we have had from the Minister, I shall return to this matter in due course when we may press that amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

GRANTS FROM EEC FUNDS

In the event of the Agency receiving grants from the Regional Fund or any other Fund of the European Economic Community for any of its purposes and functions, the Agency shall be obliged to account for these funds and expenditures separately within its annual accounts.—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I call the hon. Member for Barry (Sir Raymond Gower) to move the new clause.

Sir Raymond Gower: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been guilty of a mistake. A new clause can be moved only by the hon. Member in whose name it stands, and I therefore call the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are having not only googlies but some fast balls bowled at us and this one is whistling past my head.
As the House knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) sought to include a similar clause in the Scottish Bill on Tuesday. The arguments that I shall advance are much the same as those that he put forward, and for that and other reasons I can be brief.
It is already necessary that the Agency's accounts should differentiate between moneys received from EEC sources and from our own Government. I do not think that the Government will quarrel with that. They will probably say that the Agency intends to do that, which is what the Scottish Minister of State said during the debate on Tuesday in respect of the Scottish Agency.
I hope that the Minister will say a little more about the moneys that may come from the Regional Fund. Will they be additional to Government funds? There was a debate on this question in the European Parliament on 25th September when my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie)


said there was a suspicion that Community money was being allocated not in addition to Government aid but instead of it, and this suspicion was confirmed this week during Question Time.
I understand that at the next meeting of the Regional Fund Committee each member State will report its views on this matter. The Minister should, therefore, take this opportunity to tell the House exactly how the matter stands, because local authorities and other bodies are busy preparing schemes for submission to the EEC and there are high expectations of the outcome. The Government should take advantage of this opportunity to outline the relationship between the Agency and the EEC institutions. I do not think we should be content with the Government saying that the clause is unnecessary and that there will be separate accounting for EEC funds. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the points that I have made.

Sir Raymond Gower: I hope that the Minister will regard this as a matter of the utmost importance. Great anxieties have been expressed not only in Wales but in Scotland and in regions of England that this money from the EEC will not be used to supplement the money that is granted by the Government to sustain the economies of the regions but will in some way be used in its place. I hope that that is not the case. The EEC subventions to Wales, in particular, are intended to confer a positive benefit on the Welsh economy, and if this money is not additional to the grants in aid under regional development and other programmes for Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom it will defeat the whole object of the subventions from the European Community.
This is an extremely important new clause. I do not think we can underestimate or understate the gravity of the situation if the suspicions and fears are justified in any respect. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause not only in spirit but in fact.

Mr. Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and Barry (Sir Raymond Gower). It would be a tragedy if the possible advantages to Wales from membership of the

EEC were lost because funds that were intended for developing the industrial infrastructure and industry of Wales were treated by the Government as miscellaneous entries in the Treasury account, using the argument that they spend enough on regional development.
At the time of the EEC referendum, on which there were divided opinions, the "pro" lobby made the point that there would be additional financial benefits to Wales from such things as the Regional Fund. When it was suggested some months ago that there was an attempt to avoid passing on funds to areas such as Wales, I understand that there was deep consternation in Brussels, and that concern was expressed in the German Government, who may have to find a large proportion of the money for the Regional Fund. They certainly did not regard the money as miscellaneous income to bolster the sagging coffers of the Treasury. I believe that it would be worth while including the clause in the Bill and that we should regard this discussion as more than a probing matter.
We have all seen in this morning's Press stories about the number of projects which will come from the EEC to Wales, and I am glad to see that European money will begin to flow into Wales. However, I hope that we shall be firm in requiring categoric assurances on the rôle of the Agency and in seeking information on how much money will come from the EEC and how much from the central Government. We shall also want to know the implications in regard to maximum borrowing requirement or ceilings which may affect the Agency as a result of the provisions of the Bill. Does the limit include or exclude money from European sources? I hope that the Minister will reply in detail to this important point.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I wish to support what has been said about the desirability of ensuring that aid from the Regional Fund is additional to money provided by the central Government. Certain projects will be of great value in creating employment but some by their nature may be controversial. The fact that the projects have attracted a measure of European regional aid could swing the balance in their favour in terms of public support. I have in mind one


project which has not been widely publicised but which is a controversial matted that will eventually bring great benefits. The project is a matter of some dispute in my area, and if it were clear that European aid was to be given to that scheme it might tip the scale in favour of its acceptance.

Mr. Ian Grist: I support what has been said by other hon. Members on this clause. Will the Minister say what standing the Agency will have in seeking funds from the Regional Fund. Will he also say whether the Regional Fund should lay down conditions for the use of that money so that the Agency would have to account for it separately?

Mr. Geraint Howells: I, too, wish to support what has been said so far in this debate, but I believe that a little clarification is required in case any money that is to come from European funds goes directly to the National Enterprise Board rather than to the Welsh Development Agency. I hope that we shall have an assurance that the money will be spent in Wales and will not go to the Board.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Having heard the contributions on the clause, I almost took the view that I was about to reply to the wrong debate. I would remind the House that the debate relates to new Clause 3, dealing with how funds shall be shown in balance sheets. It has nothing to do with the nature of funds, or anything of that kind. We cannot have a long debate at this point in our deliberations, but no doubt it can be raised later in the general debate.
Having said that, I should like to make clear that the provision of EEC funds will mean that we shall be able to carry out more projects and schemes for the benefit of the Welsh people than we would be able to undertake without the funds. But in our view the new clause is completely unnecessary for the reasons given earlier in the week when the House discussed the Scottish Development Agency Bill. It is clear that the Welsh Development Agency must identify in its accounts the receipt and expenditure of EEC funds. Paragrapuh 8 of Schedule 3 of the Bill requires the

Agency to keep proper accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may determine. I assure the House that within the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State it will be stipulated that these funds should be kept separate, as is the wish of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister clarify whether any loans from the EEC are additional to or within the loan limit provided in the Bill?

Mr. Alec Jones: I made clear that I was dealing with the new clause and that general questions can be raised in the later debate.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

THE WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after 'Agency', insert:
'which shall be responsible to the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall take Amendment No. 29, in Clause 2, page 4, line 28, at end insert:
'(11) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act shall be construed as an impediment to the transfer of responsibility from the Agency to a Welsh National Assembly when such a body has been established; and such a transfer may be undertaken by order'.

Mr. Edwards: I say at the outset that we do not wish to press Amendment No. 1 to a Division. It is tabled to give the House an opportunity to debate an important matter. However, we shall await the answer on Amendment No. 29 before we make a final decision about a vote.
The object of the amendment is simple. It gives the Government an opportunity, before the House gives the Bill a Third Reading, to clarify their intentions on a vital matter—namely, the relationship of the Agency with the Secretary of State and with Parliament. Throughout our proceedings Ministers have justified the wide powers of appointment and direction given to the Secretary of State on the grounds that, after all, the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament and his actions can be probed, examined and criticised in this place. In short, we have


been told that the Agency will, through the Secretary of State, be answerable to Parliament. That is the basis on which the Bill has been presented at each stage—on Second Reading and clause by clause in Committee. It is on that basis that hon. Members have judged the Bill and cast their votes.
In the light of what has been said again and again by Ministers, one would have thought that there could be no scintilla of doubt that the Government have nothing else in mind, have dismissed any other possibility and are firmly committed to the proposition that Parliament is to be responsible for the powers given by the Bill. Yet a doubt remains, because at the end of August this report appeared in the Western Mail, written by John Osmond, its Welsh affairs correspondent:
The Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. John Morris, has given the Welsh Labour Party executive an assurance that the Welsh Development Agency will eventually be responsible to the Welsh Assembly.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): Let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery immediately. I am in no way responsible for what that correspondent writes, and I gave no assurance to anybody at any stage about what eventually will emerge in our devolution package.

Mr. Edwards: That is a very helpful intervention from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he has dealt with the question negatively. Perhaps one can ask him to go further and deal with the matter positively. The newspaper report went on to say:
During the Committee Stage of the Agency Bill…it was said no reference could be made to the assembly since it was not yet in existence.
I welcome the Secretary of State's categoric statement that no such assurance has been given—

Mr. Morris: I gave no assurance to anybody on any point.

Mr. Edwards: That is extremely welcome, but we still face the situation that in the next day or so the Cabinet is to consider a White Paper which will be brought before the House within the next month. Therefore, I believe that at this stage we are entitled to a more positive

undertaking. Surely by now the Government must know their intentions. The Secretary of State is no longer dealing with hypothetical questions but is dealing with specific matters. He is dealing with the question of whether the Government in preparing their plans should transfer responsibilities in this respect to the Assembly. Is this a possibility? Indeed, is it being put in the draft of a White Paper? The right hon. Gentleman knows whether it is, and he can tell us. He has not been shy about keeping us informed of other Government ideas.
There is no reason why the Secretary of State should not tell us whether he has this possibility in mind. If he has, he cannot proceed with the Bill as it stands. It would be an intolerable affront to the House, a constitutional outrage, if he asked us to pass a Bill based upon a series of specific undertakings when all the time he knew that something quite different was in draft and would be placed before the House in a matter of weeks. It would be a contract obtained by false pretences; we should have an Act which was the outcome of a fraudulent procedure. I am not going too far in saying that.
4.30 p.m.
At the Committee's second sitting, the Under-Secretary of State said:
Responsibility should lie with the Secretary of State because he is responsible to the House, where hon. Members can question and press him on these issues."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 10th July 1975; c. 66.]
At the third sitting the hon. Gentleman said:
The NEB and the agency are responsible to the Secretaries of State, but both are members of the Cabinet. The WDA and the NEB will operate within the framework of an overall economic strategy agreed by the Cabinet within its collective responsibility."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 15th July 1975; c. 120.]
There are three crucial quotations from the sixth sitting. At column 289 the Under-Secretary of State said:
The Welsh Development Agency will have wide terms of reference, with a diverse range of functions and what I hope may well turn out to be a pioneering rôle in many areas. The agency will have considerable sums of public money at its disposal and will, in the course of its work, be involved in sensitive matters affecting industry and employment. The agency's impact on the economy of Wales will, we hope, be substantial. That is the


purpose of the whole exercise. It is desirable therefore, in our view, that the Secretary of State, as the Minister responsible for economic planning in Wales, should be able to exercise both general and specific control.
At column 290 the Under-Secretary of State said:
The Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament for the issue of, or indeed the failure to issue, such directions…".
At column 293 he said:
We believe that we have taken fully into account the desire expressed in the Committee this morning and in another place that the Secretary of State should be accountable to Parliament for the directions he gives. We have tried to provide a reasonable means of doing so, to ensure as far as is practicable that Parliament shall have the opportunity to ensure that when the Secretary of Stale exercises his powers of general or specific direction, those powers should be open to the watchful eye of the House."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23rd July 1975; c. 289–93.]
At the seventh sitting the Under-Secretary of State said:
I believe that we are making the right proposals and that the Secretary of State must retain the final responsibility, as the agency will be a major tool for carrying out Government policies.
Dealing with the question of the membership of the Agency, the Under-Secretary of State said:
This is why we are trying to marry and balance between the requirement of a substantial measure of independence for the Welsh Development Agency—the other side has to be borne in mind—and the right degree of accountability to the Secretary of State for Wales and, through him, to the House of Commons."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24th July 1975; c. 328, 330.]
There is a series of other references to accountability to the House of Commons.
It is abundantly clear that the Government have sought to persuade Parliament to accept the Bill on the understanding that the Agency will be responsible to the Secretary of State and to no other body. I am therefore fully justified in demanding that the Secretary of State should give us a categorical assurance that it is not the Government's intention to transfer these powers to an Agency, that they are not drafting a White Paper which contains proposals to do so and that it is not their intention to include such proposals in the devolution Bill to be presented next Session.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety

to prevent the Welsh people from controlling the Agency through their own elected Assembly, but will he give us a glimpse into his thinking about the way in which he thinks that the Assembly, in those circumstances, could have any effective rôle in dealing with such matters as unemployment and employment and the development of industry and the economy in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I am not dealing with the question of the rôle of the Assembly. I am dealing with the specific commitments given by Ministers about the Agency's accountability to Parliament. I suspect that we shall have only too many opportunities to deal with the wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
If the Secretary of State cannot or will not give an assurance of the sort for which I have asked, he has no right to ask us to give the Bill a Third Reading, because a transfer of power to an Assembly would involve rewriting the greater part of the Bill, altering its whole character and changing the concept upon which it is based.

Mr. Leo Abse: The language of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) would normally be judged by myself and, I am sure, by many others as being extravagant and over-dramatic and having little relevance to the matter under consideration. But this is an unusual occasion. Not only have we been told about assurances, which the Secretary of State says are spurious, which he would never be so ill advised as to give the Welsh Labour Party, but we well know that deep thought is being given by Cabinet Ministers to the question of devolution. Therefore, although normally I would dismiss the hon. Member's speech as being over-emphatic and over-determined, I think that on this occasion he is not being unreasonable in asking the Secretary of State for an assurance.
This Bill is important to my constituency, as it is to all Welsh constituencies. It will do much for economic planning in Wales, and my constituents will expect me to be ever vigilant in scrutinising the decisions which will be made. If there were any suggestion within the Bill of any devolution of power to any outside body which might be in contemplation, it would totally disrupt the legislation.
It is abundantly clear from Clause 12(4) that if the Secretary of State exercises a function contrary to any recommendation made by the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board
he shall…lay a statement
before the House. That is an important subsection because it means that we shall be able to challenge any decision made by the Secretary of State. I can imagine no greater mischief than that decisions should be taken by any outside assemblies over which hon. Members would have no control and concerning which we could not effectively challenge any of the decisions that were made.
I am well aware that the hon. Member for Pembroke has undoubtedly put forward his amendment in the midst of an ambience in Wales of growing concern, which, I hope, will be alleviated or resolved within a short time.
My constituency will shortly have the honour, through its major, to receive you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Secretary of State. If my right hon. and learned Friend came to Pontypool he would find that there was a wide-ranging spectrum of opinion on the question of any devolution of powers, including those concerning the Welsh Development Agency. Those opinions range from profound scepticism to profound antagonism. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would find any other sort of opinion. He is not unaware of the feelings which exist. We read in the Western Mail that he has had the opportunity of attending another dinner where the Glamorgan County Council, through the leader of its Labour group, made abundantly clear the degree of scepticism which exists in the industrial valleys of Wales towards any suggestion that there should be devolution of the kind that is apparently canvassed in some areas.
When there is so much evidence of concern and alarm in the industrial valleys of South Wales it is natural that the people living in those areas, who are probably affected more than anybody else by the positive benefits which emerge in the splendid Bill, want to be certain that the control will remain in the good hands of the Secretary of State for Wales and that it will remain in his hands because it will remain for us to be constantly invigilating what he does.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman maintain that this deep disillusion with devolution extends to the Rhymney Valley?

Mr. Abse: I am sure that all hon. Members will be able to speak for their own constituencies in this matter. Indeed, much as I find the concept of referendums distasteful, unlike the hon. Gentleman I am not aware that Plaid Cymru desires any referendum on this issue, because it knows only too well what a dusty answer it would receive.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Abse: The hon. Member for Pembroke was right when he said that there will be many opportunities over many hours to discuss the whole question of devolution if, in fact, a Bill ever comes before the House.
I want to make it clear on behalf of my constituents that they would have profound misgivings if anything that the Secretary of State said led them to believe that obliquely or elliptically by some means there was any suggestion that the powers in the Bill were to be vested else where. I am sure that if the Secretary of State wants to put any devolutionary proposals before the House, he will do so not by stealth but openly. He will not attempt to do it obliquely. He will attempt to gain, or not to gain, the views of the House. In such a profound constitutional issue he will want the House of Commons to express its opinion unequivocally one way or the other.
Therefore, although I appreciate that the Secretary of State may regard this as a frivolous amendment in the normal course of events—he seems to be treating it with frivolity—I am sure he will now understand that there is such an opinion on the Labour benches that it does not require a negative response, in the sense that he says that he never said something to the Welsh Labour Party. I know that he would never be so indiscreet or ill-advised as to make a statement of that kind. I am sure that the Western Mail is completely wrong, because the Welsh Labour Party would have been seriously misled if it believed that there was any opinion on the Labour benches that an assurance of that kind could be lightly given.

4.45 p.m.

In view of the assurance that the Minister has given, I hope that he will allay any anxiety about the proposition that the great powers which he and his Department now have will be anywhere but in his hands. He is well aware that when representatives of Welsh industry met some of my hon. Friends they legitimately expressed deep concern that there should be any control over the activities of the Agency vested anywhere other than in this House. I believe that such an opinion would resonate throughout informed opinion in Wales. I hope that the anxieties of the hon. Member for Pembroke will be speedily allayed.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am glad that we are able to discuss not only Amendment No. 1 but also Amendment No. 29, to which I should like to confine my remarks.
I am always glad to follow the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I noted his remarks about the opinion of industry in Wales. I take my lead, as does my party, concerning industrial opinion in Wales from the Wales TUC. We have had a number of discussions with the members of the Wales TUC, and from the recent reports it has submitted on this issue it is clear that it is extremely anxious that overall control of economic policy should be vested in the Assembly. That is what Amendment No. 29 seeks to do.
I should like to point out that the amendment is worded in general and permissive terms. It does not in any way seek to lay down a definite structure for the relationship between the Agency and the Welsh National Assembly. Indeed, it does not seek in any way to anticipate any legislation which may in due course be brought before the House.
It may be that the debate on this amendment will obviate some of the 21 days which we are told we are likely to spend at some stage on the devolution Bill. However, I turn to the details of the amendment.
We are anxious to ensure that given an executive Assembly in Wales, which seems to be within the Government's current intentions, it should have not only detailed executive powers within its mode of operation and control and capacity to discuss the detailed consequences

of legislation, but an overview of general policy. It is our strongly held view that during the past 20 years economic policy in Wales has been extremely bitty. There has been a lack of overall objective and strategy. There has been a lack of effective economic planning, with some distinguished exceptions with which the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) was not unconnected.
The research document which was prepared by the Aberystwyth experts for the Kilbrandon Commission underlines the lack of clear strategy and objective in economic planning. We see the rôle of the Assembly as having the essential overview of economic policy. Part of this work has been undertaken already by the Welsh Council. The Welsh Council has prepared a number of important reports on economic policy in Wales. These reports do not amount to economic plans, but they are indicative of what can be done, even by a nominated body, in the area of overall economic planning.
We anticipate that the Assembly would be able, under the terms of our amendment, to have an overview of economic objectives. Last night we discussed a similar amendment concerning the Industry Bill in connection with the National Enterprise Board and the promotion of industrial democracy. We supported that amendment because it related to the principle of industrial democracy. Amendment No. 29 seeks to establish the principle of political democracy in economic planning in Wales. I commend it to the House.

Sir Raymond Gower: I submit that the Bill as it stands absolutely justifies the acceptance of Amendment No. 1 and makes not only undesirable but impossible acceptance of Amendment No. 29, for technical reasons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his legal and, indeed, factual knowledge about the Bill, must recognise that situation.
Clause 11(6) provides that
As soon as practicable after the Secretary of State has given a direction under this section he shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must do it if it is his function. An assembly could not lay before each House of Parliament. It would be nonsense to have any other body there except the Secretary of State. It must be a Minister


who is a member of this House. Only he has the capacity to do it. Implicit in the wording of the Bill is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to this House and, ultimately, his responsibility for the Assembly.
I turn now to the part of the Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). Clause 12(4) contains the duty, that
the Secretary of State…shall…lay a statement as to the matter before Parliament.
I cannot see how any other body would have the ability to lay a statement in the terms of that terminology. Only the Secretary of State, being a Member of and a Minister responsible to this House, would have the power to lay a statement in this matter.
I turn then to Clause 17(3), which provides that
The said limit shall be £100 million but the Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury raise the limit to £150 million.
If we substitute the words "the Assembly", I cannot imagine that this House would agree to the Assembly, even with the consent of the Treasury, raising the limit.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that when the Government's current plans for an Assembly come to fruition, there is every possibility that the Agency will be able to report to that Assembly? It does not mean that the Secretary of State necessarily goes out of existence and that he cannot therefore make reports to this Chamber. But the Assembly can still have an overseeing responsibility for the Agency. Those matters are not incompatible.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to recognise that we are dealing with the legal position as it is today, not as it may be in six months, a year, two years, or three years. There is no Assembly. We are dealing with an elected Parliament here assembled, with a Secretary of State for Wales responsible to this House and Members elected for constituencies in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. There is no other body. The Secretary of State is responsible for these matters. Only he has the power to increase this figure. Can the hon. Gentle-

man, with the widest stretch of the imagination, imagine the United Kingdom Parliament leaving the power to increase this amount to some outside body, however reputable? If he can conceive of that, he has a powerful imagination. This House has sometimes appeared to some hon. Members to spend or to vote too much, but it has always been covetous to maintain control of expenditure by itself. If the Assembly is substituted for any of these functions, it would make nonsense of the Bill.
I accept that new legislation may be brought in which would modify or alter the terms of the Bill when enacted. That is conceivable. I give that to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. However, there is no such legislation at present.
What is the position? The position surely is that the Secretary of State is the responsible Minister under whose authority this Agency will operate. It is only under his authority, under the authority of this House, and under moneys granted by this House, that it can function. If we sought to substitute any other responsibility for the Secretary of State, such as an Assembly or any other body, however described, it would write nonsense into much of the Bill.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: My mind is moving into almost total confusion after listening to these speeches. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will clarify one point. Is he speaking against Amendment No. 29 and Amendment No. 1? The arguments that he is using are equally valid in opposing Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 29.

Sir Raymond Gower: I do not think that I need to speak against Amendment No. 29, because I do not believe that it could be accepted. I do not suggest that it is inadmissible for discusion, but, if it were accepted, it would be nonsensical. Unless the Bill is radically altered, these functions cannot be transferred to an Assembly. An Assembly cannot lay a statement or vote moneys which are under the control of this House. It must be a Minister responsible to this House. That is why I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). In opening, I said that I supported Amendment No. 1.
In essence, the Bill is based on the principle embodied in Amendment No. 1.


I hope that the Secretary of State will not seek to avoid the clear-cut acceptance of the position for which my hon. Friend has asked. Whether we legislate is a separate question. That will be an important matter on which Parliament and different parts of the United Kingdom will have to make up their minds. However, we must discuss the Bill against the background and setting of the law as it stands. In that context, I believe that the Secretary of State must accept his own responsibility.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I agree in one respect at least with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and what is now the conventional wisdom of Members of the various parts and regions of Britain about the shortcomings of regional policy over the last 40 years. One shortcoming has been the lack of any adequate planning strategy in total. My right hon. Friends have introduced this Bill and other Bills to set that situation right.
There is another respect in which quite dramatically the shortcomings of regional policy over the last 40 years are illustrated. We have 70,400 Welsh men and women who want, but today have not got, jobs. It is in this context that we should set the questions posed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and other hon. Members regarding the constitutional future of Wales and its relevance to the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), in one of his typical understatements, said that we shall have a great deal of time during the months ahead to discuss these wider questions. However, the fact remains that the shortcomings of regional policy over the last 40 years cannot, and will not, be set to rights in the time in which they need to be overcome by the constitutional tailoring which will come before this House, by the proposals for an Assembly, or even by the further and more advanced proposal which the hon. Member for Merioneth and his hon. Friends would set before us. Their mistake is to presume that the existence of an Assembly or the development of devolution can and will, in an acceptably short time, make any difference to the essential problems facing Wales.
I very much take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Merioneth about the Welsh TUC. The mistake that Plaid Cymru makes is to presume that the Welsh TUC's enthusiasm for devolution stems from the belief that devolution as such can make a significant contribution to overcoming our problems.
The problem before us is to construct an industrial and employment strategy in the time at our disposal. In view of the critical employment situation in Wales, we must think long and hard before distracting ourselves from the vital economic issues in the forthcoming months with consideration of the constitutional niceties which have arisen from the necessity to implement the Government's manifesto promises.
Devolution is coming. It is unstoppable. We need more accountability, more participation and active democracy.
Members of Parliament must think long and carefully over the next 12 or 15 months about whether we shall permit ourselves to be distracted from the critical issues and take a month of parliamentary time in which to meander around the question of a new constitution for Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he is making a speech on a different issue.

5.0. p.m.

Mr. Grist: Despite the cut-off of the previous contribution, this debate confirms the wisdom of this first amendment. It not only reveals the futility of the nationalist party but arouses a grave suspicion about the attitude of the Secretary of State for Wales on this question. There is suspicion that he may be considering incorporating in the White Paper some means of transferring the Agency to a Welsh Assembly. That is what underlies our fears. It may be that the Secretary of State cannot, or will not, choose to speak on that subject today and that we must wait for the White Paper. I have no doubt that the Whilte Paper will provide one of the biggest blockades to further Government action that has ever been seen in this Chamber. That is why I agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
We must face up to the fact that certain people desire a proliferation of the


elected spending agencies in the United Kingdom which will be voted moneys by this House but over which Parliament will surrender control. Those elected assemblies will be politically controlled and politically biased. They will spend money in politically angled directions. That will be their right as elected bodies. However, will this Parliament continue to vote money to those bodies if they are not of the same political thinking as the majority of Members of Parliament? If the representations of Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament were changed, English Members of Parliament might not be willing to vote money to the Welsh and Scottish Agencies to spend in a politically angled fashion.
The first amendment has a considerable significance. I hope that the Secretary of State will allay some of our doubts about his personal commitment to the Agency and to the Assembly.

Mr. Wigley: As a number of bullets have been aimed at my party, I must respond to some of the points made.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) said that this House might not pass money to the Welsh body overseeing the Agency. That is an outrageous statement. Is that the attitude of himself and his colleagues towards local government units which are controlled by parties other than his own when in office? If that is the way in which he thinks about the problems, no wonder we in Wales have difficulty in obtaining the money which we need for programmes in areas such as Gwynedd. I understand the mentality of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and his colleagues in the Conservative Party. I hope that the whole of Wales will have heard that.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) dealt with the question whether the Assembly was relevant in this context. Did he fight the last election on his own party manifesto? Did he write a specific clause into his election address to his constituents saying that he disagreed with one portion of the Labour Party manifesto? Did he say that the vote electing him to Parliament in no way represented any support for parts of his party manifesto, but only for the parts which he selected? I am surprised that he should have taken that tack.

Mr. Abse: I shall answer those questions on other occasions. I told my electorate, as far as they would be interested in such peripheral matters as the Welsh Assembly, that the Welsh Development Agency would be controlled by this House in the interests of the electorate by Members of Parliament who had genuine control over the destiny of the funds and industry in their own areas.

Mr. Wigley: It was arrogance on the part of the hon. Gentleman to tell his electorate which parts of the small print they should take notice of and which they should not. That is an incredible attitude.
We are looking forward to an interesting month discussing the Bill.

Mr. Grist: Will the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) say whether he clearly indicated at all times his difference of opinion with some of his colleagues over the Common Market issue at the last election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) will not be tempted by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist).

Mr. Wigley: I am always guided by the wisdom of the Chair in these matters, as in others.
I should like to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on this matter. There must be the maximum scrutiny and opportunity to ask questions on the operation of the Welsh Development Agency. The Government's proposals for devolution are relevant in that context. The opportunity to ask questions about Wales every six weeks provides insufficient time in which to inquire into the operational problems which arise in an agency and the plethora of other bodies in Wales which need greater supervision.
Reference was made to the rôle of the Welsh Council, which is an advisory, nominated council, in these matters. That body has done good work in this context. However, it is not a democratic body. It is not answerable to the people of Wales.
The Labour Party devolution proposals contain good elements which could be wed into the Bill and which we welcome.
In Amendment No. 29 we propose that nothing in this Bill should cut across that possibility.
There are members of the Conservative Party who are unclear about the Bill. They put forward their own amendments, which need to be tightened up. Amendment No. 1 seeks to clarify any uncertainty which may exist. Perhaps the Secretary of State should be mentioned at that point. Our amendment does not cut across the longer-term possibility of the Assembly playing an active rôle in the work of the Agency.

Mr. Alec Jones: I was worried as I thought that we were dealing with the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill. When I discovered that we were straying far from what I thought the Bill contained. I became positively alarmed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is just as well that the hon. Member's judgment is not mine. I have kept the debate in order. Any reflection of that kind is unacceptable.

Mr. Jones: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was not my intention to criticise the Chair. I merely indicated that the debate had wandered to such a degree that I was not sure how I could bring my comments, in answer to the points raised, back to the amendments with which we are dealing.
It was not my intention to be critical either of the Chair or of you personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We reject both amendments. If Amendment No. 1 means anything, it suggests that the Welsh Development Agency shall not be responsible to the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said, we are dealing with things as they are, and the Secretary of State is responsible. Clause 11 refers to the Secretary of State's giving general or specific directions. Clause 16 refers to the Secretary of State's determining the financial duties of the Agency. Right through the Bill the Secretary of State's responsibilities are clearly spelt out. For that reason Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary. I am advised that it has no precise legal meaning, so from that point of view it is also unacceptable.
The discussion switched to Amendment No. 29. Plaid Cymru sought an assurance that the Welsh Development Agency

would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly, but other hon. Members were equally adamant that it should not be. In Committee we had a full discussion on this issue and assurances were given during that debate. I can add nothing of substance to what I said in Committee. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must await the White Paper to know what will be the powers and the future of any Welsh Assembly. We cannot in this Bill anticipate what kind of assembly Parliament may or may not set up for Wales or the powers that may or may not be given to it. It is a hypothetical question writ large. The provisions in the Bill are totally without prejudice to the functions that may or may not be given to the Assembly.
Although I enjoyed the debate, when my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said that we should have a great deal of time to discuss these matters in future I began to get a little weary—

Mr. Abse: My hon. Friend said that the Bill was without prejudice to what may or may not take place. That surely cannot be so when in Clause 12(4) the Bill gives specific powers to the House now. It is not without prejudice. It is a categorical affirmation that this House has the powers. Why should my hon. Friend draw back from that position?

Mr. Jones: The answer is in the words used by my hon. Friend "this House has the powers". The House has power to decide next week, next month or next year whether the Bill or any other Act of Parliament shall be amended. It will be up to the House to make a decision In saying that it was without prejudice I was merely indicating that there was nothing in the Bill to suggest what powers the Welsh Development Agency will or will not have.
On those grounds I recommend my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I made clear at the outset that we should not press the amendment and that we put it down merely to raise this important issue. As has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Bill is incompatible with the concept that the power could be surrendered to another body.
The Under-Secretary of State said that assurances were given in Committee, but on this issue no assurances were given. He spoke then, as he spoke today, about "hypothetical questions". He said that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent Parliament at some future date taking another course. Of course there is not. What we are concerned with is not the Bill as it stands, not what Parliament may decide in future but the Government's intentions. Although it may have been a hypothetical question some weeks or months ago in Committee because at that stage the Government's views on the issue may not have been clear, now the White Paper is being considered in its draft form and will be presented to the House in a month's time. It is inconceivable that the Government have not considered the question, and that they cannot give us an assurance that they will not proceed suddenly to reverse all the undertakings they have given to us about the nature of the Bill. That is very regrettable.
It would be improper for the Government to ask the House at this stage in the Session to accept a Bill on the basis of clear and categorical assurances about the relationship of the Agency to Parliament and, within the space of about four weeks, come forward with other proposals. If they do that they deserve condemnation. On that basis I will leave the matter for the time being.

Amendment negatived.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).
The paragraph states that one of the purposes for which the Agency may exercise its functions is
to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness in Wales".
There is a similar paragraph in the Industry Bill, so it would seem that there is here an overlap with the National Enterprise Board. A similar paragraph has also been belatedly inserted in the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill, largely because it is in the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill. No other significant reason was advanced for its inclusion. Our aim in moving the amendment is to find out what the Gov-

ernment mean by the paragraph, and if it has no meaning of any significance, to get the Government to leave it out.
The matter received little attention in Committee. The Secretary of State stressed that the purpose was an all-Wales purpose and resisted an attempt on the part of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to bring the paragraph more closely into line with the National Enterprise Board purpose, which is to promote efficiency and international competitiveness in any part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Secretary of State was so strong on the indivisibility of this purpose in the Welsh Bill that one was tempted to believe that he had something specific in mind.
What is meant by "industrial efficiency and international competitiveness"? In the Industry Bill Committee the Opposition stressed profitability as a criterion of efficiency and competitiveness by private and publicly-owned industry, but the Government would have none of it. In Committee on this Bill the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) suggested that "industrial efficiency" might involve mobility of labour.
As the paragraph covers one of the four fundamental purposes of the Agency, we are entitled to a more ample explanation of what is meant by promoting "industrial efficiency and international competitiveness". Otherwise, the Agency may use the paragraph as an excuse for unnecessary interference in industrial concerns. Is there an oblique reference in the phrase "promotion of international competitiveness" to the Development Corporation for Wales, which has been active in trying to secure foreign markets for Welsh goods? As the paragraph sets out one of the four fundamental purposes of the Agency, it is important that the Government should spell out precisely what is meant.

Mr. Barry Jones: I suspect that the amendment was tabled because this provision was not in the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill. Perhaps it was done at a rather late stage because the Scots followed the Welsh. I suspect that that is why the hon. Gentleman had to make such a deeply philosophical speech.
I can reply briefly. What we mean is what we say in the Bill. We think that


it is vital to the future of Wales that our industry should become more efficient and more competitive, particularly in export markets. I would not have thought any Conservative Members would have sought in any way to diminish the importance of that objective. I would have thought that efficiency and competitiveness had featured in every industrial and economic debate in the House for many years. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have said "Three cheers" for that objective.

Mr. Grist: I do not find the Minister's answer very exact. I do not know whether he has ever studied philosophy, but I would have thought this the kind of phrase that could be examined word by word if one wanted to do so. This is mumbo jumbo: it means everything or nothing. It is a marvellous phrase, "to promote industrial efficiency". Yes, we are in favour of motherhood, the good as opposed to the bad, and industrial efficiency. We are in favour of international competitiveness, but I never thought that the Agency was to be in the big league.
If the Minister thinks about it, the best way in which to achieve industrial competitiveness is by competing. As long as the Welsh economy is competitive with world competitors, and as long as it produces the goods and can sell them, it will get on with the job itself. I do not have the foggiest notion how the Agency can "promote" competitiveness, nor, I imagine, will the executive.

Sir A. Meyer: This is all part of the process whereby the Bill is deliberately raising false hopes. It is all part of the mumbo jumbo. The attitude seems to be "Leave it to the Agency. We can sit back The Agency will bring jobs and prosperity." That is why I have the greatest reservations about the Bill. The clause just adds to the offence.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I found the Minister's reply totally unsatisfactory. I must remind him that we are discussing one of the four fundamental purposes of the Bill and the Agency. This sort of subsection was not included in the Scottish Bill. The Government inserted it into this Bill at a late stage. Clearly the Government, or Scottish Ministers, were not fully convinced that the subsection had any meaning. All that we are doing

now is to press the Under-Secretary of State to define precisely what is meant by
industrial efficiency and international competitiveness".
We want to know how the Agency will achieve those objectives.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 17, at end insert:
'in those aspects where the environment has been, is, or may be adversely affected, wholly or partly by industrial development'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 1, leave out line 18 and insert:
'(where the existing amenity requires improvement)'.
No. 6, in page 1, line 18, after ' amenity ', insert ' and natural surroundings '.
No. 16, in page 2, line 20, at end insert:
'and to the desirability of safeguarding the environment'.
No. 39, in page 9, line 10, at end insert:
'after proper regard has been paid to the need to safeguard and conserve the environment'.

Mr. Wigley: I believe that these amendments will be received with sympathy by both sides of the House. We had an interesting discussion on this matter in Committee but the amendments which we put forward at that stage were rejected because of certain specific aspects. In Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 we have changed in detail what we put forward in Committee to try to overcome some of the difficulties that were put forward by the Government.
As has been said, there are some matters on which there is total agreement in the House—for example, everyone is in favour of good as opposed to evil.

Mr. Kinnock: Not always.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps what I have said does not apply to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). However, there is unanimity on the need to improve the Welsh environment, and particularly the aspects which the Bill primarily has in mind. They include areas which have been despoiled by industrial development over the last century and a half.
In Committee the argument which I put forward was that the money which is to


be provided, which must be within a certain limit, and the objective of the Agency in the framework of the Bill should be concentrated on aspects of the environment that have specifically suffered from the effects of industrial development. I outlined a number of aspects of environmental development such as rural areas, the sea coast, urban development and housing redevelopment. They were all matters which could have come within the framework of the Bill as it then stood but which I would not have regarded as the prime purpose of the Agency.
In replying to the debate in Committee the Under-Secretary of State said that he was turning down the amendments that were then put forward because
There could be a major environmental scheme which could cover an area which was 80 per cent. adversely affected by industrial development. The remaining 20 per cent. might not have been affected in this way."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 10th July 1975; c. 78.]
The hon. Gentleman pinned his argument on that basis. I accepted in Committee that it was a fair point. Amendment No. 4 has been tabled with a slight change of words and now reads
wholly or partly by industrial development".
Having made that change I hope that the Under-Secretary of State may now find it possible to accept the amendment.
There was argument in Committee about the wording of the amendment which is now represented by Amendment No. 5. I remember that the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) entered into the discussion. Clearly, there was unhappiness both in Committee and in another place about the exact phrasing that has been used. I have in mind the words "existing amenity". The point was made that any improvement in the environment would have regard to existing amenity.
The suggestion came in different forms of wording from different places that the phrase should be "(where the existing amenity requires improvement)". Once again, we have changed the wording in the amendment to meet the points that were made in Committee and to capture the spirit in Committee, which I believed crossed party lines, to improve and tighten this aspect of the Bill so as to give the Agency powers to concentrate on areas on which it should concentrate—namely,

those areas of Wales that have been left with the scars of an industrial revolution, scars which must be cleared up in this generation.

Sir Raymond Gower: I imagine that the Ministers are aware that the amendments reveal a lack of complete satisfaction about the existing wording. I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House support the general phrase
to further the improvement of the environment in Wales".
But then we come to the rather peculiar phrase
(having regard to the existing amenity)".
It might seem that that sets a limit to the task of furthering the improvement of the environment. Of course, the task must be governed to some extent by the conditions that prevail in a certain locality.
I believe that just as important as the conditions which obtain industrially is the nature of the surroundings. That is why I have added a short addendum in Amendment No. 6. It may be impossible in some areas to produce the kind of improved environment that is desirable. The natural conditions and the existing amenity may make that impracticable.
I submit that the addition of the addendum is some improvement. Frankly I am not at all happy about this wording. I am not sure that any of the proposed amendments will produce the sort of wording we all desire. I would like to hear the Minister explain in some detail what he conceives to be "amenity" and what limits are set.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I shall be advising the House to resist this group of amendments and that the existing wording is as good as any other. I take on board the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower).
We had a lengthy debate in Committee on the subject and I have considered these amendments sympathetically. However, we do not accept that they improve the Bill. The point has been made that to stipulate in the Bill that the Agency's environmental redevelopment rôle should be restricted in the way proposed would be a mistake. There could well be unsightliness which could be improved


but which could not be tied directly to the consequences of industrial development. The introduction of the phrase:
where the existing amenity requires improvement
in place of:
having regard to existing amenity
is unacceptable. The requirement that the Agency should have regard to existing amenity says exactly what is intended, and we attach importance to that.
I want to put minds at rest. In its environmental rôle the Agency will not be running amok throughout Wales, ignoring areas which require improvement and causing devastation in areas of great splendour and beauty; for example, in Caernarvon. The Agency will be a responsible body. It will obviously carefully consider the best use of the funds at its disposal. I remind hon. Members that in its environmental development rôle not only will the Agency be expected to proceed in partnership with local authorities but it will also require planning permission from local authorities before proceeding with a scheme. Policy approval of the Secretary of State is also required for schemes. This introduces a further safeguard.
In dealing with Amendment No. 6, I do not think I can add to the points I have made on Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I hope that I have said enough to reassure hon. Members that in carrying out its work of improving the environment the Agency will act responsibly. I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Caernarvon to leave things to the good sense of the Agency in carrying out its environmental function, wherever it might be in Wales, in the way in which the White Paper envisaged. This would, I am sure, fully take into account the need to preserve natural surroundings.
"Amenity" includes natural surroundings. The hon. Member for Barry wanted me to go into detail. He is an eminent lawyer with great experience of this House. He knows that if I were to go into the niceties of definitions it would take up a lot of our time. I am very much aware that it is hoped that we shall reach other business later. There is the safeguard that the Agency will need planning permission from local authorities before it can proceed with schemes.

Mr. Peter Walker: I hope that I shall be forgiven for intruding for about two minutes in this debate among Welshmen. My only excuse for doing so is that for three years my political opponent in my constituency was a Welsh preacher. For me to spend a few minutes preaching to the Welsh can perhaps be understood and forgiven in view of those three years. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who has expressed fears about the false hopes that could easily be built up as a result of this Agency.
I intervene as a former Secretary of State for the Environment to say that during the period when I was in office I was anxious that all parts of the country which suffered from industrial dereliction should have first priority when it came to improving the environment. What worries me is that, rather than talking about this Agency carrying out its functions, it would be much better if all existing powers were being used more fully and more sensibly to improve the environment of Wales. Under the Tory Government there were three areas to which we gave attention. First was the clearing of derelict land, the second was the improvement of derelict eyesores and the third was the improvement of older houses. We had a massive programme of expansion.
There was a colossal increase in the improvement of many old houses. That programme is now in steep decline in Wales. There was a massive improvement in terms of the clearance of derelict land. Now we discover that in the past 12 months approvals for derelict land clearance in Wales and almost every other region are going into sharp decline. There was "Operation Eyesore", which was far more flexible than this Agency is likely to be and far more capable of effective and speedy action.
Throughout Wales, in almost every constituency, many environmental improvements swiftly took place. There had been unemployment in the construction industry, and those who were unemployed were utilised and galvanised into action. I hope that the people of Wales will not be fooled into thinking—because there is this legislation with its fine phrases about


environment—that the Agency will necessarily do better than the whole range of programmes which succeeded under us and which now do not exist or are deteriorating under the Labour Government.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I found the Minister's comments most unsatisfactory. It is a function of the Agency to
undertake the development and redevelopment of the environment.
It is that phrasing which we do not like since it contains a sweeping power. Many hon. Members in all parties believe that the Agency is given far too much power to make positive changes which might not be generally agreed to be good.
I hope that the Minister will say something about Amendments Nos. 16 and 39. In Amendment No. 16 we seek to introduce the idea of safeguarding the environment so that an appeal can be made to the Secretary of Stale by interested bodies on the grounds referred to in the amendment in the event of the Agency endangering the environment by development or redevelopment. It was explained in Committee that "development and redevelopment" meant improvement. But we are not dealing with absolute subjects here.
The Agency might decide to promote the extraction of minerals in a picturesque locality and might justify whatever immediate harm might be done to the environment by plans to landscape the area afterwards. The Agency might argue that the landscaping would be an improvement on the existing scene. There would be some who would disagree with that. We believe, therefore, that there should be something in the Bill to justify representations being made to the Secretary of State. The Minister argued that the point was already covered by existing planning law and procedure. This is so. But we are anxious that there should be a direct responsibility upon the Agency to safeguard the environment.
The Government will no doubt argue that in Clause 14 there is a duty to consult local authorities and other interested bodies before the Agency submits applications for the performance of its functions, in particular as they relate to schemes for the development or redevelopment of the environment. Our comment

is that consultation is all very fine but it is no substitute for a duty laid upon the Agency to safeguard the environment. As the Bill stands, the duty is to develop and redevelop. We wish to see the additional duty imposed of safeguarding the environment that we all cherish.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Some of us have expressed concern at an in-built conflict between environmental work and industrial development work. This is the reasoning behind our amendment, so that there can be a clear link between environmental work in areas of dereliction, which often most require new industrial development land and new development.
The Under-Secretary will be very familiar with the schemes going ahead in North Wales to provide industrial development land as a result of derelict land clearance. We should like to see this kind of work as the priority of the Agency. Our concern is that the environmental aspect will be far too generalised and will not be specifically directed to the areas of dereliction, which are also the areas which need well-planned new industrial parks to replace the current despoliation.

Mr. Barry Jones: I understand what the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) is saying and, very much agree with him.
I did not disagree entirely with what the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) said. He held high office in the Department of the Environment for a long period. He implied that the programmes of derelict land clearance under the Labour Government did not measure up to those he had operated under the Conservative Government. He will not be surprised if I disagree in a pleasant way with his contention.
The derelict land unit in Wales, which has been doing such magnificent work, is to be subsumed within the Welsh Development Agency. A large part of the Welsh Development Agency budget will be devoted to furthering the schemes which the hon. Member for Merioneth and others have described.
The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) wished to have a response from me on the matters he raised. At worst, the phrase to which he referred might be interpreted as implying that the


Agency has a positive rôle to play in safeguarding the environment—I am sure that he will agree with me on this—but it is for the local authorities themselves to decide whether or not to grant planning permission. I remind him that, wherever appropriate, the Agency will have to apply to local planning authorities for planning permission. If any aspect of the proposed development gives rise to specific concern for environmental matters quite properly the responsibility for deciding what action is required will rest with the local authority. The hon. Member might agree with me when I say that I do not think that local authorities in Wales would welcome any implication to the contrary. That is one of the reasons on which I would base my decision not to accept the amendment.
Concerning Amendment No. 39, which the hon. Member also mentioned, in my view there is no need whatsoever to write into the Bill a requirement of the sort suggested. It is perfectly obvious that, in preparing and submitting schemes for environmental redevelopment, the Agency will give proper regard to the need to safeguard and preserve the environment.
Secondly, I remind the hon. Member that the Bill contains, in Clause 1(2)(d) the requirement that the Agency should have regard to existing amenity.

Sir Raymond Gower: May I ask the Under-Secretary why he uses terminology to the effect that it is certain that the Agency will do so-and-so? I know that the Agency will be a well-composed body, with very eminent people, but he speaks as though it is perfect and will never make any sort of error. It is surely somewhat absurd to raise any body to this magnificent stature and to suggest that it will never make an error.

Mr. Jones: I am certain that, like any other body, the Agency will make errors. None of us is free from error and no body is free from error. Our form of words, given the complications of the situation, is, we feel, as good as any. We shall have to trust the Welsh Development Agency to act according to the outlines and principles that I have indicated so far in this debate.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, I have listened with

interest to the comments made in the debate. I was especially interested to hear the contribution of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). His qualification is evident, having fought an election against an excellent man who came from Merthyr Tydvil, where I used to live. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has many fights again with him and that his opponent will eventually find his way to this Chamber.
The points made by the Under-Secretary in relation to the various amendments did not, I felt, meet the substance of what has been said by various hon. Members. I do not believe that the Under-Secretary and the other hon. Members who have spoken against him are at variance in substance. I believe that they are all trying to achieve the same thing. But I honestly believe, with other hon. Members, that the wording in the Bill does not aim at doing what the Undersecretary, I am sure, wants the Agency to do and what we all want it to do in this matter.
Reference has been made to the records of various Governments in clearing dereliction in Wales, and it is fair to say that Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have made progress in this respect over the last 10 years, but, equally, it should be said that no Government have made sufficient progress. Given that there is a restriction on the funds available for the purpose, it is important that there should be concentration upon the schemes that need money from this source, and that the money available is not scattered to other schemes which may be of environmental interest but have nothing to do with dereliction.
The Under-Secretary, in his reply, concentrated on the planning controls and the authorisation by the Secretary of State. In many of these schemes, planning controls would not be sufficient. In the case of the foreshore or the top of Snowdon they would not be needed. Other matters such as the clearance of houses could come into it—eminently good things but not the sort of work properly related to industrial dereliction.
The Under-Secretary mentioned the safeguard of the Secretary of State, but if a scheme had been put forward and received publicity it would be very difficult for him to turn it down, even though


this may not have been the main scheme upon which he wanted to spend the money.
I cannot understand why the Under-secretary cannot accommodate the amendment. His main argument in Committee was that the wording was then insufficient. We have now changed the wording. His argument was valid and we entirely accepted it, but now, the wording having been changed why cannot he accommodate us? I find it very disappointing.
With regard to the amendment dealing with existing amenity, the Under-Secretary gave an assurance in Committee, at columns 80 and 81, that he would look again at this matter. In his speech he did not say what detail he had looked at. I took his word that he may well have looked at the question, and that looking again does not necessarily mean a change, but I think that in Committee he accepted that there was a good argument here. Perhaps with the lapse of time since the Committee met the argument put forward then has dimmed into the mists of the past.
These are not amendments which we intend to force to a Division. They are amendments which we believe are important in order to underline the work on which this Agency should be concentrating. I hope that the message will go out from this debate to those who will be running the Agency, when it is set up shortly, that these are the lines on which hon. Members of all parties are thinking, and that this is work on which the Agency should concentrate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 18 at end insert 'and
(e) to act in partnership with and to coordinate the activities of other public and private bodies in Wales whose objective includes one or more of the functions listed in (a) to (c) above;'.
We regard this amendment as one of the most important amendments tabled tonight. It is not a probing amendment. We intend to press it as hard as possible.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: To a vote?

Mr. Wigley: Yes, to a vote. This amendment was debated in Committee at

length. It concerns the co-ordination of the various bodies in Wales which are associated with industrial development. As has been mentioned, both on Second Reading and in Committee, there are so many bodies in Wales that exist to develop industry and the economy that there is a crying need for co-ordination. There are bodies such as the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, and there is also the work being done by the new towns body, both in Newtown and Cwmbran, by COSIRA and by the Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation. Almost every one of the new counties has an economic development officer who is doing good work in this context. There is also the work being done by the Department of Industry, and there will be the work that this Agency will do.
Co-ordination is vital if these bodies are not to overlap and there is to be no waste of public money from such overlapping. There is also the danger that we shall not have a co-ordinated plan of attack on the problem that faces Wales and that we shall make sporadic attempts at solving it.
Recently in my constituency a problem of this nature has arisen due to lack of co-ordination. The Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association was interested in expanding its territory to take in part of my constituency. However, during consideration of this matter the lines of communication broke down because many bodies that should have been involved in the discussions, such as the district council, were not included until a late stage. This is an example of how there can be a breakdown of communication due to the fact that there are many bodies which do similar work.
In Committee the Government said that they preferred this matter to be dealt with on a partnership basis. We accept that there is partnership here. We are not saying that the Agency should give directions to bodies such as the local authorities. We built into the amendment the word "partnership" in order to underline the fears that the Government had about the previous wording.
There is a need to specify which of these bodies will be responsible for coordination. I cannot accept that any other body but the Agency can have that responsibility. It could be said that


the Secretary of State would have to undertake that function because he is creating an Agency which we hope will have the expertise and dynamism to deal with the problems facing Wales. If the Agency does not have those qualities it will be a waste of time. If it does, it is the body that should be doing the co-ordination.
I accept that the Secretary of State would be responsible to Parliament—in due course there may be other arrangements but that is a different matter—for the democratic control, but for the day-to-day management and for ensuring that decisions taken in one place do not overlap those taken in another place there needs to be a body which is regarded by everyone as the hub of a wheel—a wheel that moves in the same direction, and a wheel of many parts, but a wheel that is linked by spokes to one part. This Agency should be the hub.
I press the Under-Secretary and the Government to think again on this amendment and to accept that the co-ordination of the various activities in this sphere must be done by the Agency. I ask them to accept the amendment.

Sir Raymond Gower: I recollect that the Government spokesmen accepted the principle and spirit of this idea when we debated these matters in Committee. They did not go so far as to accept any particular amendment, but I have the impression that they were in favour of the principle that has been enunciated by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley).
I support not merely the principle that he has enunciated but his amendment. I should like it supplemented by the Agency having the duty to give advice and help to these bodies. However, the amendment is first class, and I hope that the Government, as they indicated an acceptance of the idea in principle and have not tabled a different amendment to embody this idea in principle, will accept it. I hope that the Minister will say that they will. If not, and if the hon. Gentleman's colleagues propose to divide on this amendment, I shall support them in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) tabled a similar amendment in Committee but it called only for co-ordination of activities

of other bodies whose objectives included one or more of the function listed in subsection (2)(a) and (2)(b). However, the hon. Gentleman later pointed out that there was a printing error and that paragraph (c) should have been included. The present amendment has added paragraph (c) but not paragraph (d), although a number of bodies are concerned with the environment with which the Agency will have to work. However, perhaps that can be left to the partnership, which was mentioned in Committee.
The Government resisted this amendment in Committee on the ground that the inclusion of co-ordination as a specific purpose of the Agency might lead to difficulties in relationships with other bodies. The argument they advanced was not very convincing. As I indicated in Committee, Conservative Members are sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment because many bodies are involved which have similar aims to those ascribed to the Agency, in particular the local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) also supported the amendment in Committee. Other bodies require co-ordination and leadership of the type that the hon. Member for Caernarvon has just described. The Under-Secretary argued that co-ordination was the responsibility of the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State has to operate through some body and the Agency seems well fitted—indeed, best fitted—for the task.
There is a need for positive coordination and we are not averse to laying a specific duty on the Agency in this connection. Without co-ordination, effort will be dissipated and money wasted. The left hand will not know what the right hand is doing. If the hon. Member for Caernarvon presses his amendment to a Division, we shall support him.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) decided to vote against the Government before he heard further contributions from the Government Front Bench. There is a danger that discussion on this amendment will assume that the Government are opposed to co-operation and coordination and that only those who support the amendment are in favour of it. We are desperately anxious that there


shall be the maximum degree of co-operation and co-ordination between the Welsh Development Agency and all the other private or public bodies that operate in Wales.
The divide between us is about whether we shall make that co-operation or coordination a statutory duty. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) indicated that many bodies throughout Wales operated in similar spheres. He specifically mentioned local authorities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that local authorities in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom are sometimes, rightly, jealous that no one should intrude. That feeling may be wrongly held, but it is held by local authorities. Co-operation and co-ordination, partnership and working together, are not secured by making one body statutorily responsible for co-ordination.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the Minister agree that local authorities in Wales look to the Welsh Office for guidance and leadership, particularly at this time of crisis, when unemployment is high? Certainly it is my experience that they look to the Welsh Office, and I believe that through the Welsh Office they will look to the Agency for the kind of co-operation that we expect.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Jones: I hope that local authorities will always look to the Welsh Office for guidance and advice when required. It is easy to play about with the words "co-operation" and "co-ordination", but they are not so easy to achieve. We are talking of major projects stretching from the north to the south of Wales. The right degree of co-operation can best be achieved when it grows from the roots. Willingness to work in partnership can best be fostered naturally rather than by imposition of a statutory duty.
I appreciate the need for co-operation and co-ordination. I have reconsidered the problem, and discussed it with several people. It would be a mistake to believe that imposing such a duty on the Agency would not cause friction among many of the other organisations which are doing first-class work.

Sir Raymond Gower: I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. We

are all encouraged by his statement that the Government want co-operation between the Agency and the other bodies. The Government have accepted the spirit of the amendment, and the Minister's objections are covered by the words "to act in partnership". The hon. Gentleman says that the local authorities are jealous of their functions and do not want to be ordered about. A partner does not order his partner about, but acts in co-operation.

Mr. Jones: I do not read the amendment in the same way. I do not believe that one can be regarded as an equal member of a partnership if one of the partners has special statutory responsibilities or powers which the other does not have. That is clearly what is meant. The hon. Member for Caernarvon spoke of a statutory power to co-ordinate. I believe that that would create resentment not only among local authorities and many of the public bodies, but among many of the private organisations with which the Agency will have to work. The amendment includes the words
public and private bodies in Wales".
If we are to have the co-operation and co-ordination between all the bodies in Wales that we believe to be necessary in this area, I ask the hon. Gentleman to think again. It would be a great mistake to impose this statutory duty merely on the Agency.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that we have too many bodies trying to look after the economy in Wales, the economy of Mid-Wales in particular, and that it would be much wiser to coordinate policies within the framework of the Agency?

Mr. Jones: I can see merit in that, but it might be as well to delay discussion of Mid-Wales until we come to the specific amendments dealing with the area, when I am sure many contributions will be made on how its problems can be dealt with.
What divides us is not whether we need co-ordination but whether it shall be statutory. Having held many discussions with various organisations, I believe that imposition of a duty to co-ordinate activities would make it much more difficult for the Agency to begin its work in the right spirit, one which I hope will succeed.

Mr. Wigley: I am disappointed that the Government have not been able to meet us on this matter. The Under-Secretary said that he would much rather see organic co-ordination growing. If that happens, it will be highly desirable.
I refer in the amendment to private bodies so as to include such organisations as the Welsh Development Corporation, which obtains much of its money from private sources. There are both private and public bodies at work, and the coordination that we hope will blossom is not yet apparent. We face the problem not only in Mid-Wales but in other parts of Wales. I have seen in my work in industry manifestations of the problems of having to deal with a number of different authorities when sometimes, with the best will in the world, the left and right hands are not quite sure what the other is doing.
We are not talking of a power for Big Brother to say "You will do this and that". We want to make sure that each authority knows what the others are doing. Somebody must take an initiative, and the Agency is the right organisation to do so.
If we leave things as they are, the problems will persist and become worse, because there will be one more body involved. We need one that will co-ordinate all the others which are doing work which is excellent work but which

will be limited in value unless they are all pulling in the same direction at the same time.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this aspect is particularly important in safeguarding employment, and that unless there is coordination, particularly with the local authorities, there will be a tremendous dissipation of effort?

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a very valid point. The Manpower Services Commission is bringing forward excellent schemes, which we welcome but which we should like to go further. There is a need for co-ordination there. I have been chasing people in my constituency, such as the economic development officer, to make sure that there is co-ordination. There is not the global co-ordination that should exist.
That is why I want to include in the Bill a reference to the co-ordination that is essential if we are to have the maximum possible benefit that we all want from setting up the Agency. For that reason we have tabled the amendment, and shall be glad to have the opportunity to divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 101.

Division No. 357.]
AYES
[6.10 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Berry, Hon Anthony
Henderson, Douglas
Osborn, John


Biffen, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pardoe, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cockcroft, John
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sims, Roger


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawrence, Ivan
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacCormick, Iain
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Wall, Patrick


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watt, Hamish


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus



Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan, Geraint
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Neave, Airey
Mr. D. E. Thomas.


Grist, Ian




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cant, R. B.


Anderson, Donald
Bates, Alf
Carmichael, Neil


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bidwell, Sydney
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkinson, Norman
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)




Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sandelson, Neville


Eadie, Alex
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Edge, Geoff
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Small, William


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McNamara, Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


George, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Goodhart, Philip
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ward, Michael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noble, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hunter, Adam
Park, George



Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry, Tom
Mr. David Stoddart and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 1, after 'provide', insert
'or assist in the provision of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 10, in page 2, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
'(c) to carry on or establish and carry on whether by themselves or jointly with any other persons, industrial undertakings';
No. 12, in page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
'(f) to provide or adapt sites and provide, adapt, modernise or reconstruct premises for industrial undertakings or assist any other person to do any of those things and provide or assist in the provision of related services or facilities';
No. 13, in page 2, line 12, after 'manage', insert
'or assist in the management of';
No. 14, in page 2, line 16, after 'undertake', insert
'or assist in undertaking'.

Mr. Edwards: The object of these amendments is to introduce greater flexibility into the Bill, or at least to make clear that flexibility exists. The amendments seek to put the wording in line with that of the Scottish Development Agency Bill, which wording seemed to have some merit.
We want to make sure that the Agency can act not just on its own but in partnership with others and that it can participate jointly and contribute perhaps a modest share which might make it possible to get a venture established. We made clear in Committee that we do not believe that a Government body should establish and manage an industrial or commercial concern in competition with the private sector.
We object to the inclusion of subsection (3)(c). If we are to have this provision, let us at least make sure that the Agency is free to perform what could be its most useful function, that of providing the backing which can make it possible for a business to succeed.
The object of these amendments is to make that flexibility abundantly clear. In particular we want to make plain that there is power not just to provide industrial premises but to adapt, modernise and reconstruct them. What may be just as important as providing the services is to make it possible for others to do so.
Whilst the Minister is right in saying that we should not follow slavishly the Scottish Bill, this seems to be a case in which the wording in that Bill has something to contribute and that there would be much merit in accepting the wording in that Bill.

Mr. Alec Jones: In dealing with Amendments Nos. 9, 13 and 14, the hon.
Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) was right to emphasise the need for flexibility. However, I must commend the House to reject the amendments. I do so because the flexibility which he wants already exists in the present wording. There is no quarrel with the principle behind the amendments, but I believe them to be unnecessary because the greater including the less, as the phrase goes, means that it is already explicit in the drafting of the Bill that the Agency can assist in providing finance and providing sites, and undertaking the development and redevelopment of the environment. I hope that, with that assurance, that the flexibility which the hon. Gentleman requested is inbuilt in the Bill, he will withdraw Amendment No. 9 and not press Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
I now wish to say something about Amendment No. 10. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has done a considerable amount of homework in the recess and has made a study of the Scottish Development Agency Bill. I do not criticise the Bill, but it is not incumbent on us to ensure that our wording is identical with the wording in that Bill. There is no point of substance in Amendment No. 10. The difference between the two Bills merely reflects different drafting styles of two different draftsmen. There is no need to change the wording for the sake of change.
Amendment No. 12 introduces the concept of assistance, but, as I have indicated, we already have that degree of flexibility in the Bill. The amendment refers to adapting, modernising or reconstructing premises. There is a difference here between our Bill and the Scottish Bill. The words in Amendment No. 12 have been included in the Scottish Bill because that Bill does not contain a provision equivalent to Clause 8(2) in the Bill under discussion. The hon. Gentleman will see that Clause 8(2) spells out the Agency's power to
modernise, adapt or reconstruct buildings".
I hope that, with this assurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Grist: Could the Minister put my mind at rest on Amendment No. 9? I was not quite clear from what he said whether the Agency could act as a guarantor for a body or company wishing

to raise money rather than having to provide the finance. "To assist in the provision of" is not the same as "providing". Assisting in the provision, for instance, could imply acting as a guarantor.

Sir Raymond Gower: Of course, the Minister is accurate in saying that the whole includes the part. We can all appreciate that. The words
to provide finance for persons carrying on…industrial undertakings
would embrace the part provision by the Agency and the part provision by some other person or organisation. Nevertheless I believe that there would be considerable value in accepting the amendments.
The Agency, on looking at this measure, might be disposed to say "As an agency, we are to provide the finance exclusively and not in co-operation with other persons or organisations". The inclusion of the proposed words would act as a guideline to the Agency. They would spell out the idea that the Agency does not need to do this separately and wholly, but that it could do it in co-operation with others. To that extent I should have thought that, as they are in the Scottish Bill, the words should be included also in this Bill. The Minister has said that there is no reason why we should slavishly follow the Scottish Bill. We accept that, but can he explain why these or similar words were imported into the Scottish Bill? Surely there was some valid reason.

Mr. Alec Jones: With the leave of the House, I think I said that the Scottish Bill was drafted by one draftsman and this Bill was drafted by another. After all, if two people sat down to write about the same subject it would be extraordinary if they used identical words. We merely have a different choice of words largely as a result of the different draftsmen involved. When we refer to the provision of anything, it includes assisting in the provision. When we talk about managing, that includes assisting in the management of; when we talk about undertaking, that includes assisting in the undertaking. If we were to add the proposed words they would not add one jot of extra power to the Welsh Development Agency. If these words are not necessary or helpful, we would be unwise to clutter up the Bill any further.
I refer the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) to Clause 1(6)(e) which gives the Agency power
to guarantee obligations (arising out of loans or otherwise) incurred by other persons".

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: We are interested to know that different draftsmen have been involved, although parts of the Bill appear to have had a common parentage. However, in view of the assurances, which are now on the record, that our objectives are achieved by the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I take this opportunity to tell the House that I was wrong to ask the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to seek the leave of the House to speak again. The mover of an amendment and Members on the Government Front Bench may participate more than once in the debate without permission from the House—as long as they are lucky to be called, of course.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'an'.
This is a drafting amendment which we have culled from the Scottish Development Agency Bill. Our amendment broadens the scope of this function of the Agency while at the same time retaining the ability of the Agency to act in a particular sphere according to the last few words of the paragraph. I would have thought our amendment would have been welcomed by the Government.

Mr. Barry Jones: Without malice, I have to tell the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) that the amendment is unwelcome and I advise the House to resist it.
We think that there is nothing of substance in the amendment. Terminologically speaking, I would say that the Welsh Development Agency Bill follows the Industry Bill in referring to
an industry or any undertaking in an industry".
It also uses words in the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry", namely, the words "an industry", which are to be found in paragraphs 24 and 28 of that White Paper.
I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Conway not to press his amendment. The Bill follows the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act which contains in Section 2(1) the words
promote or assist the reorganisation or development of any industry"—
not industry at large. We could have a lengthy debate about this one word, but I hope I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman that he should not press his amendment.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: It is clear from the variety of words in the various documents mentioned by the Minister that the Government once again cannot make up their minds. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
'(4A) The Agency may only exercise functions under subsection (3)(c) above through subsidiaries.'.
What we are seeking to do by the amendment is to meet some of the points raised by the Opposition in Committee. From the outset we have sought to make clear that in fulfilling its industrial investment rôle the Agency will operate in the same way as any other company that is starting up or running a business.
During the recess we read again what was said by the Opposition in Committee and considered whether it would be desirable and appropriate to put more words in the Bill to clarify our intentions on this matter. As a result of our considerations I have pleasure in commending the amendment to the House.
It provides that in performing its industrial investment functions under Clause 1(3)(c) the Agency is required to operate through a subsidiary. In practice this is the sensible way in which we would expect the Agency to operate and it seems right therefore that we should stipulate this in the Bill. That is what the amendment means. It means that any companies set up by the Agency, whether wholly or partially owned, will be subject to the same rules of conduct and the same liabilities as are private companies. They will be regulated by the City code and by all


the legislation that governs commercial trading activities.
I trust that the amendment will meet the points made by the Opposition in Committee. This is what they are seeking to do by their Amendment No. 25. It is the Government's view that our form of words does what is necessary in a far more effective way, and I therefore hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I welcome the amendment, because it has a similar objective to an amendment which I tabled at the instigation of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. In Committee the Government would not accept our case for professional audit on the ground that the Agency had a wide range of functions financed by Government funds which should be subject to the normal audit procedures. Now that the commercial activities are to be carried out through subsidiaries, I understand that the accounts of the company will, by virtue of Section 161 of the Companies Act 1948, have to be audited by professional accountants, and that meets our main objective.
My only comment is that our amendment is a little more specific in that it refers to the Companies Act. Although the Minister said that his wording was so much better, once again it must be a question of drafting, because our Scottish colleagues thought otherwise and preferred our amendment. I want confirmation from the Minister that the reference in his amendment to subsidiaries specifically brings the matter within the provisions of Section 161 of the Companies Act 1948.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am glad to give the assurance that that section of the Companies Act covers this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'anything' to 'or' in line 23 and insert 'whether in Wales'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 22, leave out
'with the approval of the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Alec Jones: This is another amendment that has been tabled in response to

representations made in Committee. We reconsidered the subsection, and as a result we have put down the amendment. Without labouring the point, unless any hon. Member wants me to elaborate further, I commend the amendment to the House in the knowledge, I trust, that it meets the requirements of the Opposition.
I must ask the House to resist Amendment No. 20 because our Amendment No. 19 does a better job.

Mr. Wigley: I accept that Amendment No. 20 is unnecessary because of the Government amendment. I welcome the Government's rethinking and I thank the Under-Secretary of State for taking note of what was said in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 29, at end insert:
'Provided that in disposing of securities, preference should be given to transferring them in a democratic manner to the ownership of the employees of the firm to which they relate'.
There was considerable discussion in Committee, as there has been outside the Chamber, about the length of time and the manner in which the Agency should hold on to shares. One school of thought believes that if the Agency needs to take over shares, it should dispose of them as quickly as possible by whatever means it can.
There is the practical consideration of how many shares and how much stock value the Agency can hold, given that it has borrowing limits placed upon it under the Bill. If, working within the borrowing limits, shares that have been taken over by the Agency for good purposes—which we would welcome—have to be passed to other people, we strongly hold the view that the Government should consider passing them to the employees of the firm to which they relate. I appreciate that that may not be possible in all circumstances, and therefore we have included the term "preference should be given". It is not something that overrules all other options, but it stresses that there should be some positive thinking and that the Government should consider involving employees in the concern in which they work.
There was an interesting parallel discussion when we debated the Industry


Bill last night. We discussed the need for greater industrial democracy, and the Minister, replying to the debate, said that the Government were looking for all means of experimenting with industrial democracy to try to find a formula by which workpeople could be much more involved in the decisions shaping their everyday lives. I hope that the Agency will look positively for room to experiment in this field, because I am convinced, as are some hon. Members on the Government Benches and on the Conservative Benches, too, that there must be a change in this sphere over the next few years if we are to overcome the industrial problems that have belaboured us for so long.
I hope that if the Government cannot accept the wording of the amendment they will at least give an assurance that they will seek means of involving employees where there has been a takeover of shares. This is a method of decentralising. It is a method of making sure that if there is a public stake, it is not all centralised, whether in Cardiff or London, and there is a means of passing the shares to those who are most critically affected by any decisions that are taken. I ask the Government seriously to consider the amendment.

Mr. Barry Jones: I shall advise the House to resist the amendment, but I think that everyone is attracted by what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said about the need for positive thinking and involving employees. The effect of the amendment would be to oblige the Agency, when disposing of securities, to give preference to employees. The Government have a great deal of sympathy with the spirit of the amendment, but I do not thing that it would be wise at the outset to tie the hands of the Agency in this way.
One of the functions of the Agency is to promote industrial democracy in undertakings that it controls, and employee shareholding is one of many ways in which that can be done. There is clearly a need for experimenting rather than laying down a specific type of scheme. I give the assurance that the Agency will be expected to play a full part in the development of forms of industrial democracy best suited to Welsh industry.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I intervene briefly to express my personal disappointment that the amendment has not been accepted by the Government. It seeks only to ensure that the Agency will give first preference to those employed in the company. We in our party are anxious to promote industrial democracy in the true sense and that entails financial control of the assets and securities of a company. We were much attracted by the recent proposals put forward by the Swedish Government, but I shall not discuss that subject now.
We are grateful for the Minister's assurance and hope that the Agency will take the point seriously and will act to promote real worker control as opposed to any waffling participation.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Minister said that the Agency could not be bound in this way, but there does not seem to be much "binding" in this proposal. It appears merely to give preference to a process which has shown its value in industry and in many well-known institutions. The Minister is aware of the success of this principle in connection with some co-operatives in which for a long time there has been an element of profit-sharing and shareholding. He will be aware of the success of the John Lewis Partnership, which derives strength from the fact that its employees hold shares in that concern. I cannot understand why the Minister should regard these provisions as putting a great burden on the Agency in these special circumstances which envisage giving the employees some preferences.

Mr. Wigley: I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division because some of the Minister's remarks give room for hope as to what will happen when the Agency is set up. I hope that the spirit of his reply will be transmitted to the Agency and that that attitude will not be forgotten. I hope that the principle of employee ownership of securities and shares will be examined.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 41, at end insert:
'(but it shall not be the primary purpose of the Agency to undertake agricultural activity)';.


The purpose of the amendment is to give effect to what was said by the Minister in Committee:
We do not believe that it is even conceivable that the Agency would seek to manage land for agricultural purposes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22nd July 1975; c. 248.]
An undertaking was given in Committee that the point would be carefully investigated by the Government.
The purpose of our amendment is to remove any concern in the agricultural community that this change will involve the Agency in agricultural activity. The agricultural community has expressed concern about this matter and we believe that it should be made clear in the Bill that the Government do not intend the Agency to manage agricultural land. In recent cases the Government have taken over estates and such activity has not met with marked success—in Gwynedd, for example, where the Welsh Office went in for estate management. The Undersecretary of State recently admitted this in a letter to me.
We believe that it should be made clear in the Bill that the Agency will not be an agricultural body or engage in agricultural activity. There has been considerable distrust of the present Government among the Welsh agricultural community and we do not wish to see that distrust perpetuated. If the amendment were accepted, it would make clear that the Agency's rôle is promotional as it affects industrial development, the environment and conservation in areas of dereliction, and that it is not the Agency's aim to be promotional in an agricultural sense.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. In Committee the Minister said that inevitably on some occasions the Agency could conceivably acquire an industrial hereditament including some land and that it would be difficult to avoid ownership of agricultural land in that way, but the amendment avoids that difficulty by using the term "primary purpose". I accept that the amendment is not watertight, but I hope that the Minister can accept the principle behind it.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: This is a reasonable amendment and expresses a view that was touched upon in proceedings on

this Bill at earlier stages and also in the proceedings on the Community Land Bill. The Land Authority for Wales will also hold land and, like the Agency, may be forced to farm it pending development. We do not want too many gentlemen farmers in the Civil Service.

Mr, Barry Jones: There are enough in the hon. Member's party already.

Mr. Roberts: The amendment expresses Parliament's intentions on this subject. However, I expect the Government to say that the amendment is unnecessary possibly because they know that the Agency may hold land and find it necessary to farm it for many years before development takes place. In certain cases it might well appear from the length of occupation that the Agency's purpose is to undertake agricultural activity, and in that event the Government may not wish to be reminded of a provision on the lines of Amendment No. 23.

Mr. Alec Jones: I regret that I must resist the amendment. In Committee I promised to look at the matter and I have done so. I appreciate that the wording of the amendment has led to a change from the use of the word "solely" to the phrase "primary purpose". My advice is that the amendment, far from helping, would make the situation slightly worse. We should find ourselves in difficulty if we were called upon to define the word "primary".
As I spelt out in Committee, nobody believes that the rôle of the Agency will lie in agricultural activities. Indeed, in Committee the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said that there might well be limited occasions when it might be necessary for land to be acquired in order to ensure that it was efficiently managed. It is important for us to assure the agricultural interests of Wales that that is not seen as a function of the WDA. If that had been intended as one of its functions, it would have been written into the Bill. The fact that it was not included is clear evidence that the Government do not intend the Agency to indulge in agricultural activities.

Mr. Wigley: We are grateful for the Minister's assurance, but Clause 26 mentions the phrase "commercial activity", which could well include agriculture. The


Minister suggested that that was not the case, but the point of our amendment is to clarify the situation.

Mr. Jones: I have already made clear how the Government see the WDA working, and agriculture is not mentioned as one of its functions. I do not believe anybody believes that the Government wish to see such a body undertake agricultural functions, because agriculture is one of the major industries of Wales. To seek to slip such a matter in by the back door would be an affront not only to agricultural interests, but to the House.
We have indicated that agriculture will not be a concern of the Agency. We have said that there might be an odd occasion—no more than that—when we would want it effectively to manage the land. The fact that we have included subsection (4) in the clause shows that we are determined that the Agency shall operate in such a way as to
have regard to the requirements of agriculture and efficient land management.
We have done everything possible to blow away the fears which apparently exist in the agriculture industry. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are in close contact with agricultural interests will ensure that the words we have uttered tonight and in Committee are brought to their attention so that their fears may be allayed.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of the Under-Secretary's assurances, for which we are grateful and which will be well received by the agricultural industry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 5, at end insert:
'(7) The Agency shall not normally acquire shares or stock in a company without the consent and agreement of that company; where acquisition is sought without the consent of the company, it shall be on the authority of the Secretary of State after a draft order, specifying the social reasons justifying such compulsory acquisition, has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons'.
This amendment deals with a matter which has been quite controversial during the passages of this Bill and of the Industry Bill. Government Front Bench spokesmen have given assurances, in

replying to probing amendments and questions from Conservative Members, that shares and interest in companies would be acquired by the Agency only when the companies gave their consent. This has been generally interpreted as referring to situations in which shares may be bought on the market—and plainly there would have to be a willing seller for the willing buyer to get his way—under the take-over code of the City of London and the safeguards which it incorporates.
In Committee I raised a point, which was not adequately met, concerning companies, such as asset strippers, which follow what can only be described as antisocial policies and which buy factories or manufacturing plant purely in order to close them and to decrease the job opportunities in an area. I should have thought that the Agency would have a particular interest in circumstances such as that and that it might well wish to intervene in a situation in which a takeover of that type might occur and to ensure that the factory or plant would not be closed. In those circumstances, the company making the take-over—the asset stripper—and about to close the factory would be a very unwilling seller, because the realisation of the money which it envisaged in taking the course of action which it proposed could be considerably greater than any value which it might receive for the shares. It would be wrong for the Government or any public body to pay the price of the shares to compensate a company which might gain benefit from asset stripping.
Therefore, there might be circumstances in which the Government should have power, albeit a closely monitored power, to intervene contrary to the wishes of the company involved. In other words, it should be possible for a compulsory takeover to occur. Such occurrences might be few and far between, and we have incorporated in the amendment the safeguard that the social reasons for such an acquisition should be specified and should be approved by resolution of the House of Commons. We appreciate that such action would have to be agreed by representatives of the people and that the social reasons for taking such action should be justified in this Chamber.
Reasons for such action can arise. I recall what happened at Cefn Coed, near Merthyr Tydfil. The hon. Member for


Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) will recall the incident. I am sure that the people employed in the factory in question would have been very happy had an agency such as the Welsh Development Agency been able to ensure that people who acted like cowboys did not have their way but that the well-being of the employees in the area was given primary consideration.
I appreciate that the amendment will not be welcomed by certain hon. Members on this side of the House, but it should be welcomed by hon. Members on the Government side and I hope that the Government will respond favourably to it.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The amendment is deceptive because it seems at first sight to reinforce the point that the Welsh Development Agency will be able to acquire only by consent. In fact, its intention is to give the Agency power to acquire without consent in certain circumstances.
I do not propose to participate in an argument about the case which the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has advanced except to say that if there are circumstances in which the Agency should act in the way proposed they should be spelled out in a positive clause and not in this rather deceptive way by a provision which apparently attempts to do something different.
In Committee the Minister gave a clear assurance that
All the agency's acquisitions of securities and other property have to be by agreement with the owner of that property. The agency as a creature of statute will have powers to do only what the Bill specifies. The Bill confers one power of compulsory acquisition only, and that is in respect of land."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22nd July 1975; c. 233.]
In my view, the amendment is unacceptable because it proposes that there should be written into the Bill the implication that there is a right of acquisition without consent. I believe that such a provision should not be written into the Bill except on a clear-cut, well-defined and specific basis.

Mr. Barry Jones: We agree with the official Opposition, and particularly the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), about this amendment, although one can understand the strong feelings behind the argument of the hon.

Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). Asset stripping is socially wrong, but I wish to take this opportunity to point out that the Agency will not be able to acquire shares compulsorily and that there is no power in the Bill to enable it to do that. It will have to acquire shares with the agreement and consent of their owner or owners—in other words, the shareholders. That puts the Agency on exactly the same footing as a private company.
Some hon. Members seem anxious to ensure that the Agency does not have advantages over private industry. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Pembroke and his hon. Friends on this matter, as I tried to do in Committee. The view that the Agency should not have advantages over private industry is shared by the Government, but this should work both ways. Why should the Agency be put in a worse position than private industry? In practice, I expect that acquisitions will normally take place by agreement with the company directors and, as I said in Committee, the Agency will be required to comply fully with the letter and spirit of the City take-over code.
We all deplore the asset-stripping activities of companies, but we have no plans within this Bill to deal specifically with the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarvon.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: I listened to the Minister's words carefully and he said "Within this Bill". Does he have other legislation in mind which could meet the point about asset stripping? Does he believe that the activities of companies of this sort can be dealt with in entirety by another Bill?

Mr. Jones: I must confine myself to this Bill. There are no powers in this Bill.

Mr. Wigley: I find the Under-Secretary's attitude to this matter surprising. I believe that there will be circumstances in the coming months and years when members of the Labour Party in many parts of Wales will look for the sort of powers that we have tried to include in our amendment. Some hon. Members will take the view that companies may be riding roughshod and that there is not enough social concern. They will


look to the Agency for help, but they will do so in vain, because the Agency will not have the powers. They will look elsewhere to see whether there is an alternative, but they will find that there are no alternatives. The Under-Secretary was unable to point to any alternative means of dealing with this problem although he has admitted that the problem exists and crops up from time to time. That means that unless we build something into the Bill there will be no provision. The problem exists, but the House is either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. I find this extremely regrettable. In my view, given the right sort of safeguards, this type of provision should be built into a Bill of this sort.
If the Government had the social con science that is necessary to face the speculators and directors who play cow boys with industry—as has happened in more than one place—they would respond to the situation. For that reason it is with regret—

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is adopting a "holier than thou" attitude. If the hon. Gentleman wanted a provision in the Bill stating that there should be powers of compulsory acquisition he should have tabled a specific provision so that there could be a specific debate on that issue. He should not try to do it by the back door, by tabling an amendment on the basis of something which is not in the Bill, seeking to put in some hypothetical safeguards. He is not facing the situation fairly and squarely.

Mr. Wigley: That is a load of hypocrisy and cant, because in Committee it was unclear to hon. Members and other people exactly what the powers would be in terms of acquisition. Under-Secretary after Under-Secretary emphasised that there would be no compulsory acquisition, because people believed that there was going to be. It was not until we reached the Committee stage that the matter was clarified.

Mr. John Morris: If the hon. Gentleman had paid attention he would know that from the publication of the Bill it was made abundantly clear time after time that there were no powers of compulsory acquisition. It may be that he

was unable to read, did not want to read, or, indeed, misunderstood the Bill. I recall how he poured cold water and scorn on the Bill and described it as a glorified derelict land agency. He failed to read or understand the Bill. Now he is seeking, by the back door, to do something that it not provided for at all.

Mr. Wigley: It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Wales does not have as good a memory as the Prime Minister. It was not the Bill that I described in that way but the Government's intention to introduce the Bill before the details were specified.
On what happened in Committee, I point out that I attended many more sittings than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I and my hon. Friends involved ourselves in the details of the Bill.
In any event, to put an amendment down at this stage cannot be described as a back-door method, because it deals with something that came to light in Committee. The amendment is specific. It provides the powers which the Government, for their own reasons, are unwilling to accept. I find it strange that a Labour Government are unwilling to accept these powers, but no doubt they have their reasons. Presumably they have come to some agreement with the City, or whoever, that they will not have any compulsory take-overs. They can fight their battles in the trade unions and the left wing of their party at a later stage.
These powers are needed if the social problems allied with asset stripping are to be met. However, because of the deficiencies in the Bill these problems will not be met. However many back doors, side windows, or whatever the Secretary of State may go through, he is not facing the problem. He will have to deal with the problem because he has not buried it at this stage.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

CONSTITUTION AND STATUS

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 4, line 8, at end insert
'or any other field of activity which the Secretary of State considers is relevant to the discharge of the functions of the Agency'


In Committee we discussed a variety of possible additions to the areas from which the Secretary of State could draw members of the Agency. These areas included the law, economics, research, international affairs, consumer affairs, agriculture, horticulture and land management. The amendment obviously covers all these areas of activity. In Committee the Minister promised to consider the matter as such provisions are already included in the Scottish Development Agency Bill.
The amendment also helps to eliminate the suggestion of exclusivity which still surrounds subsection (3). Although we have been assured by the Minister that that subsection is by no means exclusive and that the Secretary of State's choice of membership is not limited to the categories listed, I believe that this is an amendment that the Government can accept without qualms. The amendment improves the clause as it stands.

Sir Raymond Gower: In Committee the Government rejected suggestions that additional professions or occupations should be specified in detail. I recall that the Minister rejected the inclusion of the legal profession and other professions which were named in amendments. The formula in the amendment would appear to overcome the objections which he then expressed and the reasons which he then gave for not adding to the list as set out in the Bill. The amendment provides a neat way of accomplishing what some hon. Members want, to which only certain technical objections were raised. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment as an absolute solution.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am sorry to disappoint hon. Gentlemen, but I must resist the amendment. It is true that I promised to look at the matter and I have spent some time doing so. I recall the discussions we had in Committee and the long list of suggested qualifications to be added to Clause 2(3).
It is true that the amendment would cover the areas which we discussed in Committee, but it is also true that the Bill as drafted includes all those areas. The words:
The members of the Agency shall include
mean the sort of people discussed on that occasion. The clause is not exclu-

sive. The amendment is not necessary. The fact that membership of this House includes Labour Members of Parliament does not exclude Conservative Members. We might wish that it were the opposite, but that is the present position. The fact that the words "shall include" appear in the clause means that the amendment is unnecessary.
I understand the point about the Scottish Development Agency Bill, but that Bill is not identical with this. The Scottish Development Agency Bill includes the provision that
The members of the Agency shall be appointed from among".
Therefore, it was not necessary to include in this Bill a long list, or words similar to those used in the amendment.
I hope that, with this assurance and that indicating that this Bill is not on a par with the Scottish Development Agency Bill, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Grist: I was interested in what the Minister said in his description of "inclusive" in terms of membership of the House. He was describing a position which exists. He was not saying that the House shall include Conservative, Communist or National Front Members. I do not follow his logic. The words "shall include" seem to mean that these persons have to show these various qualifications. I cannot see how we can get round that. They add up to more members than there are on the Agency, if I remember rightly, unless we have a multiple person who is in a number of these jobs, which is quite possible. I do not think that the Minister has got it right.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: In view of the Minister's assurance and explanation, which we accept, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 4, line 19, at end insert:
'(7A) The Agency with the approval of the Secretary of State, shall appoint a Director of Rural Development. The Director of Rural Development shall be a member of the Agency but the Chairman and Deputy Chairman shall not be Director of Rural Development'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 31, in Clause 5, page 5, line 15, at end insert:
'(3) The Agency shall establish a Committee for Rural Development. The Director of Rural Development shall be a member of the Committee. The Committee shall have special responsibility for Mid-Wales and for rural Wales'.

Mr. Edwards: This amendment, taken with Amendment No. 31, is important. Indeed, we regard this as one of the more important debates of the evening.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
The agency's remit covers the whole of Wales, and I regard it as having a responsibility to contribute to developing rural as well as urban Wales. This naturally raises questions about the special needs of Mid-Wales and the concept of a Mid-Wales Development Board. I made it clear throughout this year that we are giving priority in this Session to establishing a Welsh Development Agency with an all-Wales remit. But I have made it equally clear that we are giving the most careful consideration to what else may need to be done in rural Wales in the light of the developing rôle to be given to the Welsh Agency and the responsibilities of existing bodies."—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 690.]
In Committee, during our debate on the problems of Mid-Wales, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) spoke of the need
to co-ordinate the activities of bodies already existing…I refer to the Mid-Wales Development Association and the New Town Development Corporation. All these bodies need to see their work continued.
I do not believe that the Welsh Development Agency, as it is, will be sufficient for this purpose. We shall need a second organisation, be it a separate one or an organisation within the Welsh Development Agency. We certainly need to make special provision".
Our amendments attempt to meet that objective within the framework of the Bill and the Agency's general area of activity by proposing the appointment of a Director of Rural Development and a Committee for Rural Development within the Agency. We think that there is a need, but that, if we are to have an Agency, the matter is best dealt with in this way within its structure.
We are also anxious to know the Government's intentions. I know that it has become clear during today's proceedings that we cannot always rely on the Western Mail, but we read in that paper on 16th October:
A call for the Government to act quickly with a new initiative for development in rural

Wales came yesterday from the executive committee of the Welsh Labour Party. And Mr. Emrys Roberts, chairman of the New Town Development Corporation, said he would like to see the Corporation made an agent for the new Welsh Development Agency and its limit extended to include Brecon and Bala.
The Welsh Labour Party's call was for a body to examine the needs of each community in rural Wales and with the power and finance to act to maintain them.
But Mr. Roberts said this could best be achieved by retaining the Mid-Wales Development Corporation structure though making it responsible to the new Welsh Development Agency.
He spelled out his reasons for proposing that solution.
Nothing in our amendments would prevent the Welsh Development Agency from acting as an agent for the WDA. Indeed, we have it on the authority of the Under-Secretary, speaking in Committee on 24th July:
The Agency will be able, by mutual agreement, to use the Mid-Wales Development Corporation as its agent for certain of its functions within the designated area of the new town.
We also had his assurance:
The Agency will certainly have a rôle to play in Mid-Wales. I confirm that it is our intention that the Agency will work in close co-operation and harmony with other bodies which operate in the area. The rôle of the Agency will be to bring its special powers and skills to the assistance of those organisations such as, for example, the Development Commission or the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24th July 1975; c. 364–7.]
One might have imagined from that speech by the Under-Secretary that the Government intended to use the Agency as their main instrument and that they saw it as the organisation to co-ordinate the activities of existing bodies operating in this area.
7.15 p.m.
I do not think that is the Government's intention. I believe that they have prepared and propose to bring in as a matter of urgency early in the new Session a Bill to establish a new form of development agency for Mid-Wales. I think it likely that the principles of this Bill have been approved at the highest level, and presumably its imminent birth will be announced in the Queen's Speech. Yet, with his too common lack of candour, the Secretary of State has not told us so. Once again, the House is being asked to approve a Bill under a misapprehension on the basis of information, fed to it by the Government


during the Committee stage, which obscures the reality. I cannot imagine why they should not come out and tell us what their intentions are.
The Western Mail, in a leading article pointing to the need to sort out the present arrangements, said:
The creation of the Welsh Development Agency provides the supreme opportunity to accomplish this task, but still no decisions have been announced, despite Mr. John Morris's oft-professed concern.
Now is the moment for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make that announcement. We pressed him to do so in July, and I suggest that he can now delay no longer.
In these amendments we have one possible solution in mind which uses the very extensive powers already given to the Welsh Development Agency. We seek to institutionalise within the Agency this special rôle and responsibility.
The leading article in the Western Mail of 16th October, continued with the comment:
One solution would be to set up within the WDA a rural division with an identifiable budget of its own and a base in mid-Wales. But Mr. Emrys Roberts, the chairman of the New Town Development Corporation, makes an important and valid point when he says that in rural areas industrial and housing development cannot be divorced and that this should dictate that the corporation become an agent of the WDA.
That was exactly the solution which we had in mind when we tabled our amendments at the beginning of October. Nothing that has been said since changes my view that this is a perfectly feasible way of setting about the task. If the Secretary of State has an alternative, I suggest that now is the moment when he might reasonably tell us about if.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I wish to intervene in the debate, obviously, as my area has been discussed and since the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has kindly made some of my speech for me. However, I should like to finish it off now in the right context.
I am delighted that the Conservative Opposition have had a change of heart on the whole aspect of intervention in rural Wales. We would have had a body acting in this area for many years now—the Rural Development Board—if the

then Conservative administration had not done away with the ideas which the previous Labour Government brought to fruition. Now the Opposition are coming along with us. We missed a good opportunity, and we now need to make up for the lost time.
I am not supporting the amendments, for reasons which I will give later. For me they would be a kind of "last ditch" position. They do not represent a position which I want to take up. They would be a poor alternative to the ideal. These amendments will not provide the best means for dealing with the problems of Mid-Wales and rural Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend has oft repeated his promise to provide for Mid-Wales and rural Wales after getting the Welsh Development Agency Bill through and setting up the Agency. I should like to see the establishment of separate organisations to deal with these matters. We need a body to care for the economic and social well-being of Mid-Wales and which can concentrate its efforts solely on doing that. If we proceed within the context of the WDA there is a danger that the major interventions will take place in the urban areas as so many more people will be affected. Unless there is a clearly defined area of activity in rural Wales we shall not see any benefits. We look for the establishment of a body of the nature of the Highlands and Islands Development Board for rural Wales.
We must not confuse Mid-Wales and rural Wales. Rural Wales obviously extends much wider than Mid-Wales. That is why I seek a body along the lines of the Highlands and Islands Development Board to intervene in the many activities in those areas. For instance, Anglesey will need help with tourism, the retention of rural schools, transport and many other aspects.
I should like to see the establishment of a further body in Mid-Wales to look after the economic and industrial aspects. There is now a need for separate boards for rural Wales and Mid-Wales in addition to the WDA to undertake the work now being done by many other bodies. The remit of the WDA would be too narrow for my purposes. I want to see activities carried out which the WDA would not undertake. I urge my right hon. Friend to continue his search for separate provision.
I do not support these amendments because I think that they are premature. I wait to see what the Minister will produce to meet the needs of Wales. If he assures me that he is still concentrating on the problem I shall not support the Opposition in pressing these amendments.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) is perhaps unwise in waiting for the establishment of a body to deal with the problems of Mid-Wales and rural Wales. It would be far better for him to support the laudable efforts to create, within the work of the Agency, a subsidiary organisation to deal with those problems.
The expression "rural Wales" embraces a large area. It extends beyond the narrow frontiers delineated in terms of the Mid-Wales organisations which have functioned in the past. There are parts of North and South Wales which are distinctively rural.
There will be another valuable effect if the hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of these amendments. Although we understand that the Agency has a remit for the whole of Wales, there is a danger of its main attention being devoted to the problems of the industrial areas, the great conurbations around Cardiff and Swansea, and the counties of Glamorgan, Gwent and East Flint. If we could persuade the Minister to include the amendment there would be a counterbalance within the Agency. The Agency would not be entirely preoccupied with the problems of heavy and medium industry. It would recognise the valid contribution to the Welsh economy of those parts of Wales where there will be no sizeable industrial development in the foreseeable future.
That is a reasonable formula. There would be a director of rural development, whose entire function would be to consider the needs of rural Wales. He would work within the Agency. He would pay special attention to this work and influence the thinking of his colleagues. I do not suggest that those people would pay no attention to the problems of rural Wales, but the presence of this officer as a member of the

Agency would strengthen the claims of rural Wales to constant attention. A rural development committee with special responsibility for rural Wales and Mid-Wales would be an organisation within the Agency which would strengthen the attention given to the needs of these parts of Wales.
I hope that the Government are receptive to this idea. Even though they may not agree with the exact wording, they can say whether they accept the principle and revise the wording.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: This is an important debate on rural Wales. We have seen the delaying tactics of successive Governments bleeding the rural sections of Wales to a slow death rather than providing sound rural development policies.
In the past 20 years there have been several reports dealing with the problems of rural Wales. The Beacham Report on depopulation in Mid-Wales came out in the early 1960s. A study was commissioned for a new town in Mid-Wales, a proposed town which was described as the "New Caerswsalem". That town did not materialise. The study document indicated the need for substantial economic growth in Mid-Wales.
Further reports have been prepared in the past five years by the Welsh Council. I refer to the report on economic strategy for rural Wales. There is a plethora of bodies active in Mid-Wales. I refer to the local government sponsored bodies, the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, the central Government sponsored bodies, the Mid-Wales Development Corporation and COSIRA. The latest body concerned with development is the Development Commission, which is answerable to the Department of the Environment.
I take it that the Welsh Office has agreed to all those initiatives. There is a substantial lack of concern in local government in Gwynedd, Dyfed and other districts at the plethora of bodies which are active now. I attended a meeting of the district councils in Gwynedd a fortnight ago. They expressed their concern over the initiative which had come from the Development Commission to expand the area of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association to include other areas of so-called Mid-Wales. I fail to


see how the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) or my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) can be described as forming part of Mid-Wales. That is typical of the confusion of the policies applying to these areas.
My plea is for the Secretary of State to give us a clear indication of his intentions? I read his Newtown speech of last October with great enthusiasm. It is now papering the wall of my office, and I look at it regularly. I hope to see the Secretary of State carrying out the undertakings he gave when he opened the Newtown exhibition. However, I give one warning: it is important that we should not extend the Newtown instrument as it is, as a blunt instrument, into rural Wales. Comprehensive development in rural areas is a very sensitive exercise. That is why many of us, including the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), have described the Highlands and Islands Development Board as the type of organisation which we should welcome in rural Wales. Despite criticisms about democratic answerability, that board has shown a sensitivity to development in housing and to the concept of community development in rural areas generally. We want to see similar sensitivity from a rural development agency operating in Mid-Wales.
I support the amendment because it provides an interim structure. It provides within the WDA a director of rural development who will be able to act in the interim while we await legislation from the Secretary of State. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that that legislation is coming and that there will be action. It is not sufficient for him to remind us that he hails from Mid-Wales and lives there. He must also show that he has policies which will revitalise an area that has been neglected by this place for 80 years.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I am the first to agree, in all humility, that this is an important subject. It is one with which I have been familiar all my life. During the debate—an interesting one—I was invited to unfold my views about Mid-Wales in the same way as in an earlier debate I was invited to unfold the Government's intentions on devolution. To

do all that would need an omnibus Bill, and we have not yet reached the stage at which I can introduce a Wales (All Purposes) Bill to meet all contingencies. Therefore, I must not be seduced by the invitations to expand about all possible contingencies.
Three views have emerged from the debate. Those who tabled the amendment, in all sincerity, want the provision for its own sake. That I understand. There are those like the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) who want the proposal as an interim provision. There are those like my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) who do not want it now but, if nothing better emerged, would adopt it as a fallback position.
From the beginning we have said repeatedly that the concept of the Welsh Development Agency is that it should have an all-Wales rôle. No part of Wales should be denied the opportunity of being able to avail itself of the substantial resources placed at the disposal of the Agency.
I am not answerable for the Western Mail correspondents or for its leader writers. Despite the patronising tone of whoever wrote a recent leader, I yield to none in my concern for Mid-Wales, and I am grateful and flattered to hear that my speech at Newtown papers the wall of the office of the hon. Member for Merioneth. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what he says, but I may pay a visit to his office to examine the papering. I hope that no one will dispute the sincerity of my approach.
I remember in 1955—or it may have been earlier—reading the famous report on Mid-Wales which contained these words which I have never forgotten:
Depopulation has been used as a form of economic adjustment in Mid-Wales.
I often think of those words. I understand what they mean because of my experience in my own locality and at my school. I know how many people returned to my valley to earn their livelihood there. Therefore, I yield to no one in my awareness of the problem.
It should be understood here and now that these fundamentally important powers of the Welsh Development Agency should not be denied to any part of Wales—Mid-Wales in particular—which


wants to avail itself of them. My first argument is that the Welsh Development Agency will have a rôle throughout Wales.
The amendment suggests that singled out as part of the organisational structure of the Agency there should be a committee for one purpose and a director for a similar purpose. If, as I hope, the Agency will evolve, why at this juncture should one seek to restrict it? Why, in a detailed Bill which has been canvassed, discussed and argued uphill and downhill, should we be unduly restrictive and seek to spell out in terms the internal structure of this body which I hope will be with us for a long time and evolve to meet the host of problems that inevitably will arise throughout the whole of Wales?
If there were to be a director for one part of Wales, why should not there be a director for other parts of Wales? Why should there not be a director for Southwest Wales, where problems will arise from what may be found in the Celtic Sea? Why has the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) concentrated on Mid-Wales and rural Wales? I am not sure what is the difference between them, but I imagine that rural Wales includes Mid-Wales. One cannot single out a concept for Mid-Wales to be followed by one for rural Wales as if the areas were distinct one from the other.
I am anxious to ensure that the best possible machinery is available for Mid-Wales. I am aware of the number of bodies that operate there now. The Welsh Office provides money for the Development Commission, which operates at my behest. The chairman comes to see me, I give him what advice and guidance I can and I have to approve whatever steps are taken. A great deal of welcome initiative comes from the Development Commission under its exceedingly energetic chairman, a former colleague of ours. At the end of the day I pick up the bill and seek to ensure that the ongoing machinery in Mid-Wales and rural Wales is used as effectively as possible.
In the position that faced me last year I could not allow one moment of time to be lost before introducing the Welsh

Development Authority. I wanted to ensure that the machinery we had in Mid-Wales at that time was used to the full. I welcome very much the success of the New Town Corporation and the energetic steps which have been taken by the Development Commission with money provided by the Welsh Office.
I advise the House to resist the amendment on the basis that the Agency will have an all-Wales rôle, that the amendment would be unduly restrictive, that it is selective and seeks to crib, cabin and confine the internal organisation of the Agency. I shall continue to give careful consideration to whatever else may need to be done for rural Wales in the light of the rôle of the WDA and existing bodies.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) said that we had had a change of heart, but it was the powers of compulsory acquisition that were written into the previous proposal that caused so much dislike. The powers of the Agency in this respect are less extreme. In any case, the Agency is given powers that it can operate in Mid-Wales and rural Wales. We are now seeking to produce the organisation that is required.
I noted that though the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not give us any information about his plans, he did not in any way seek to deny what I have had to say about his proposed legislative programme. I do not think that he can talk about the Agency having an all-Wales rôle while he is preparing legislation to give the responsibility to some other kind of body.
Equally, it is inadequate to come before the House and to talk about having an awareness of the problem and to claim that he has been giving careful thought to it. No doubt he has had an awareness of the problem for a long time and has been giving careful thought to it for a long time, but as he has given us no form of declaration of policy and as he has had nothing to say about his future intentions, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 358.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Henderson, Douglas
Osborn, John


Biffen, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clerk
Rathbone, Tim


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Silvester, Fred


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Durant, Tony
Lane, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Luce, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacCormick, Iain
Watt, Hamish


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wigley, Dafydd


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus
Winterton, Nicholas


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Hall, Sir John
Neave, Airey
Mr. Adam Butler.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael





NOES


Abse, Leo
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Atkinson, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bates, Alf
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rooker, J. W.


Bidwell, Sydney
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Carmichael, Nell
Kinnock, Nell
Sandelson, Neville


Clemitson, Ivor
Lamond, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Eddie
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
Mackintosh, John P.
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Millan, Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ward, Michael


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flannery, Martin
Noble, Mike
Young, David (Bolton E)


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Padley, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, John (Islington C)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Mr. David Stoddart and


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 29, in page 4, line 28, at end insert:
'(11) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act shall be construed as an impediment to the transfer of responsibility from the Agency to a Welsh

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 76.

National Assembly when such a body has been established; and such a transfer may be undertaken by order'.—[Mr. D. E. Thomas.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 75.

John, Brynmor
Moonman, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Noble, Mike
Stoddart, David


Lamond, James
Padley, Walter
Strang, Gavin


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Loyden, Eddie
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McCartney, Hugh
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rooker, J. W.
Ward, Michael


Madden, Max
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marks, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville
Young, David (Bolton E)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Millan, Bruce
Small, William
Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

POWER TO FORM COMMITTEES

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 7, leave out
'with the approval of the Secretary of State'.
In the amendment we make another attempt to remove a quite unnecessary restriction on the Agency's powers to appoint committees.
Their noble Lordships in another place succeeded in removing the requirement that the Agency should have to get the approval of the Secretary of State for the membership of committees, except for persons who are not members of the Agency, where approval is still required.
I am quite unable to see why a responsible organisation has to have the consent of the Secretary of State before it can set up a committee. I should have thought that responsibility could be left to any organisation of any merit at all.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) urged the Under-Secretary to look at the matter and see if he could cut free the Agency from what he referred to in Commitee as "red tape and bureaucracy". The only argument advanced in favour of this restriction on the powers of the Agency was the tendency, referred to in the Committee, for the Welsh to form committees ad infinitum.
We all know that when two Englishmen get together they form a club, when two Scots get together they form a bank, when two Irishmen get together they form three political parties, and when two Welshmen get together they form five committees. None the less, it really is not a very serious argument for tying the hands of a responsible statutory body.
Why should we think that a Welsh Secretary of State, backed by the Welsh Office, is likely to be effective in checking this national tendency? I should have thought it might rather be encouraged. If we want good people we should not treat them like children.

Mr. Barry Jones: Having heard the hon. Member's persuasive remarks, we shall accept the amendment.

Mr. Edwards: I am overcome with astonishment but I should like to express our gratitude.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

TRANSFER TO AGENCY OF LAND HELD UNDER THE LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ACT 1972.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 26, after 'held', insert:
'(otherwise than as security for a loan)'.
This is a technical amendment, required to ensure that in the specific case of land vested in the Secretary of State for the purpose of security for a loan it shall not be transferred to the Agency. It was never the intention that such land should be transferred. This amendment is designed to make this clear.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Minister tell the House with how much land the Agency will be vested in this way? As he knows, I have been asking questions about Government land holdings in Wales, and I am surprised at the Government's ignorance of the extent of those holdings.
Secondly, will the Minister tell us how much land is being held as security for loans, and by whom?

Mr. Alec Jones: I am sorry that I have not those figures with me but if they are available in the office I shall send the information to the hon. Gentleman.
The type of case where land is held as security for a loan arises under Section 4 of the Local Employment Act 1972. There have been 90 cases since 1972, indicating the need for this sort of amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

APPLICATION OF LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 TO AGENCY PREMISES

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 6, line 37, at end add:
'(2) In section 59 of that Act (compensation for exercise of special powers in relation to tenancies)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words "sections" there shall be inserted the words "or, subject to subsection (1A) below, section 60A below", and
(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(1A) No compensation shall be recoverable under subsection (1) above where the certificate was given under section 60A below and either—

(a) the premises vested in the Welsh Development Agency under section 6 (property of Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation) or 7 (land held under Local Employment Act 1972) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, or
(b) the tenant was not tenant of the premises when the said Agency acquired the interest by virtue of which the certificate was given."'.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In Committee the Under-Secretary promised to write to me about several points that I raised on this very technical clause. I am grateful to him for doing so and for satisfying me. I do not think the House will want me to go through a long letter, but there is such a letter dealing with the points that were raised in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) mentioned the question of compensation. The question posed is whether there should be a provision in the Bill for compensation for a tenant who, as a consequence of the implementation of these provisions, was precluded from a new tenancy. The object of the clause is to provide compensation for those tenants who could not have known, because

of the nature of their tenancy agreements, that they might be caught out by the provisions of the Bill. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would confirm this.

Mr. Barry Jones: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

SELECTIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 7, line 24, at end insert:
'and give the information concerning it that is required to be specified in a statement under subsection (6) above'.
This is an eminently helpful amendment to Members on both sides, because it specifies the kind of information that is required about directions under Clause 11 in the annual report; namely, the amount of assistance given under Section 7 of the Industry Act, and how and to whom it was given.
The amendment follows the one inserted in the Scottish Development Agency Bill by the Government in Committee. I do not see how the Government can resist this amendment, having inserted a similar one in the Scottish Development Agency Bill.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am convinced of the irrestibility of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), and we accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 7, line 35, after ' of', insert ' and incidental to '.
This is simply a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 6, at end add—
'(14A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared, without prejudice to the generality of section 2(8) above, that powers exercised by the Agency under this section are not exercised on behalf of the Crown or of any government department.'.
The amendment is intended to make it clear that, when the Agency is exercising its power to give selective financial assistance, it is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Secretary of State. The provision ensures that when the


Agency gives assistance under Clause 11 it shall do so in its own name, therefore if any dispute arises it will be dealt with by the Welsh Development Agency. This ensures that the Agency will have every incentive to act efficiently and prudently.
I am delighted to assure the House that for the sake of uniformity, parallel amendments have been made to the Industry Bill and the Scottish Development Agency Bill. The amendment now brings this Bill into line with those.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

WELSH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 8, line 10, at end insert:
'and under section 3 of the Industry Act 1975'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment we shall take Amendment No. 38, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—
'(5) Any reference in this section to the Secretary of State's function under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 includes a reference to his functions under section 11 of this Act and section 3 of the Industry Act 1975'.

Mr. Wigley: The amendment relates to a matter raised in Committee concerning the setting up of the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board. In the Bill as it stood then, and as it stands now, there are provisions for Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 to be brought in. The amendment is also designed to include the powers under the 1975 legislation, assuming that the Industry Bill becomes an Act this year, and particularly we have in mind those in Clause 3.
The Under-Secretary responded in Committee by saying that he would look into this, and I hope that he is now in a position to advise the House of the outcome of his investigations.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Amendment No. 38 is similar in some ways to Amendment No. 37 and does rather more than simply clarify the position and insert the cross-references between the Industry Act 1972, the Industry Bill 1975 and this Bill. The amendment, incidentally, is included in

the Scottish Development Agency Bill and has been there, I think, from the beginning of that Bill's passage through Parliament. I cannot believe that there is any difference intended between the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies in their relationship with the National Enterprise Board and with the operation of Clause 3 of the Industry Bill, yet a difference will surely exist unless this subsection is included.
What we hope will be secured by Amendment No. 38 is that when the Secretary of State exercises his power to operate Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972, be it through the National Enterprise Board or the Agency under Clause 11 of this Bill, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board will advise him, and if it disagrees with the exercise, the Secretary of State may have to lay a statement before Parliament. In other words, our amendment strengthens the Secretary of State's and the Welsh Indus trial Development Board's control over the Welsh operations of the NEB in relation to the Industry Act 1972.
I should like confirmation from the Government that this is their interpretation of the effect of the amendment. Without this amendment the NEB can give financial assistance to a firm in Wales without the Welsh Industrial Development Board's advice. This is the crux of our amendment.

Mr. Alec Jones: Both amendments deal with the same point, although the Conservative amendment goes slightly further. In Committee I undertook to consider some of the arguments which have been repeated this evening. I have had consultations on this, and we have come to the conclusion that the amendment is unnecessary. I shall explain why.
The Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board will advise the Secretary of State on the exercise of his functions under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972. That is quite clear and there is no disagreement about it. Its prime purpose is to provide detailed appraisals of commercial investment proposals. It will take over on a statutory basis from the present non-statutory board.
These amendments refer to Clause 11 of the Welsh Development Agency Bill and Clause 3 of the Industry Bill 1975.
In both there is reference to the exercise of the Section 7 functions by the Agency and the NEB. However in both circumstances the functions being exercised still remain those of the Secretary of State under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972. The Board will advise under Section 7 of that Act. Clause 11 of this Bill and Clause 3 of the Industry Bill refer to the powers under Section 7. Clause 11 states:
In any case where it appears to the Secretary of State that the powers conferred on him by section 7 of the Industry Act 1972…
It is quite clear that the Advisory Board will advise the Secretary of State on the exercise of those powers and therefore these two amendments become unnecessary.
Like many hon. Members, I have become an expert on the Scottish Development Agency Bill, which contains this provision. There is no reason for it to be included in this Bill, as the meaning is quite obvious. Clause 11 of the Bill has no meaning apart from the Section 7 reference.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Minister confirm that the National Enterprise Board could, therefore, not operate under Clause 3 of the Industry Bill in Wales in relation to financial assistance without the advice of the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board?

Mr. Jones: In general that would be true. It would certainly apply to any considerable activity in that sphere. However, we could not give a 100 per cent. assurance because there could be minor transactions. For example, if the NEB were giving financial assistance to a firm whose major functions took place in England but which had some subsidiary activity in Wales, a small piece could slip through the net. However, basically there will be co-operation and co-ordination between the two bodies.

Mr. Wigley: I have listened with interest to the remarks made by the Under-Secretary. His assurances are a little surprising. I have read quickly through Clause 3 of the Industry Bill. I shall need time to digest what the hon. Gentleman has said. I find it difficult to believe that it is all covered by this, particularly as other hon. Members felt the same about the Scottish Bill. It seems that we are trying to do the same thing.
If those who have done the Minister's homework are quite convinced about this, I am willing to accept his word and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

FINANCIAL DUTIES OF THE AGENCY

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 16, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
The present drafting allows the Secretary of State a discretionary power to determine the financial duties of the Agency. The amendment meets a point made by Opposition Members in Committee and imposes a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to determine the Agency's financial duties.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: This point was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). I am grateful to the Government for accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 10, line 19, at end insert:
'but it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, before making a determination, to satisfy themselves that the duties to be imposed on the Agency are likely to result in an adequate return on capital employed by the Agency; but this requirement shall only apply in relation to the functions referred to in section 1(3)(b), (c) and (d) and to the powers referred to in section 1(6)(a) to (g)'.
In Committee we sought to introduce a requirement that the duties to be imposed on the Agency would be likely to result in an adequate return on capital employed by the Agency. The Under-Secretary pointed out that:
there are other activities, for example, environmental redevelopment and the provision of industrial estates
where the concept of an adequate return on capital would be inappropriate and that a clause such as Clause 5(3) of the Industry Act would not be suitable. He said:
However, I can go this far to meet the amendments. I can give an assurance that the Agency, in carrying out functions analogous


to those of the NEB, will be expected, in exactly the same way as the NEB, to obtain an adequate return on the capital employed in those duties taken together. Further, with a view to making progress and to reaching other important amendments, I can say that we shall consider between now and Report whether we can produce a satisfactory and appropriate formula which will refer to an adequate rate of return on those elements of the Agency's functions which correspond to the functions to be undertaken by the NEB. I hope that that will be acceptable."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 29th July 1975; c. 438–9.]
We made it clear in Committee that we objected to the term "taken together", but on the strength of the Minister's assurance we withdrew our amendment. The Government have not come forward with a new formula and our amendment, therefore, seeks to fill the gap. It attempts to do no more than that which the Government attempted to do in the Industry Bill, namely, to provide that there should be a standard by which the commercial operations as opposed to the social operations of the Agency might be judged.
Return on capital is about the best basis we have for judging a commercial operation. It is important that standards should be set by which the Agency's commercial operations can be judged. There is no reason why the Government should not accept in this Bill what they accepted in the Industry Bill. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: This time the amendment of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) is unacceptable. We have always maintained that the Agency's industrial investment functions, like those of the NEB, have to be considered together, not in isolation from each other. That is why Clause 6 of the Industry Bill refers to functions taken together.
I would remind hon. Members of a point that is often overlooked. The Agency will be a much more disparate

Division No. 360.]
AYES
[8.21 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bitten, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Knox, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lane, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian
Luce, Richard


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hall, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus


Durant, Tony
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
James, David
Morgan, Geraint


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Neave, Airey

creature than the NEB. The Agency will have a much wider range of work and responsibilities than the NEB. Of the Agency's nine functions, five have no counterparts in the Industry Bill. In this context it is questionable how necessary it is to introduce assimilation such as that sought by this amendment. We have concluded that the proper place for a requirement of this sort to be spelled out is in the guidelines to be issued to the Agency.

I reaffirm our assurance that in exercising its industrial investment duties the Agency will be expected to achieve an adequate return on capital on those duties taken together. This will be unequivocably required of the Agency in the operation of the guidelines to be issued to it.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: We think it extremely important that proper financial disciplines should be imposed, particularly on those parts of the Agency's functions where it is operating in the commercial sphere. The Secretary of State said that there was a wide range of functions that were not in that sphere. It is precisely the functions that are in it that we identify. We identify the same functions where the disciplines were imposed in the Industry Bill.
At a time when public expenditure is a key matter, it is vital to have such disciplines. We also seek them as a protection against unfair competition with the private sector. There should be publication of the criteria laid down so that the House may judge the proceedings.
For all these reasons, we think that this is a matter of importance, and I shall, therefore, ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 79.

Neubert, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Weatherill, Bernard


Osborn, John
Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sims, Roger



Pardoe, John
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry and




Mr. Michael Roberts.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Henderson, Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rooker, J. W.


Atkinson, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sandelson, Neville


Bates, Alf
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Bidwell, Sydney
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Small, William


Clemitson, Ivor
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Coleman, Donald
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dormand, J. D.
MacCormick, Iain
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Edge, Geoff
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ward, Michael


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watt, Hamish


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Newens, Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Flannery, Martin
Noble, Mike



George, Bruce
Padley, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Grant, John (Islington C)
Perry, Ernest
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Radice, Giles

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 17

FINANCES OF THE AGENCY

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 11, line 3, at end insert:
'Notwithstanding the general limit imposed by this subsection, the Agency shall not be authorised to spend more than £50 million on the exercise of their powers under section 1(3)(c) until a report has been submitted to Parliament on the record and achievements of the Agency in this regard and the report has been approved by both Houses of Parliament'
A similar amendment to this was moved earlier this week during the debate on the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill. It imposes a limit on the expenditure that can be undertaken by the Agency in its commercial activities and gives Parliament the opportunity to examine the performance of the Agency in this field and the results it has achieved before authorising any further expenditure.
We made clear at earlier stages of the Bill that we had a fundamental objection to the Agency being permitted to carry on industrial undertakings. The object of the Government in introducing this power is to save and create jobs, but we

believe that, in varied ways not least in its competition with other concerns in the private sector and its impact on confidence, the Agency could destroy jobs. The greatest destroyer of jobs and the prime cause of economic disaster, which will be the principal topic of the short debate which follows the Third Reading of this Bill, is the reckless increase which is taking place in public expenditure.
We sought in Committee to impose a general limitation on the expenditure of the Agency. Here we are seeking to put a specific restriction on a particular area of expenditure. The prime duty of a Government is to create conditions in which businesses can prosper and we should like to see a concentration on infrastructure and matters of this kind. There is a danger that resources will be misdirected.
It is hard to see the Government's objections to this amendment. The limit provided is very high—perhaps too high—and the Government say they are confident that enterprises established by the Agency will be a success, judged on a commercial basis. I cannot see why they should be afraid to report to the House before asking for more money, or why they should doubt that the House will grant more money. The amendment is


another attempt to make sure that we retain some measure of control over the executive, which has taken wide powers of direction, and the Agency. As the Government seem unable to control their own expenditure, the House should do it for them.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Agency's main financial limit is £100 million and this cannot be exceeded without the authority of the House of Commons, given in the form of an affirmative resolution. Since this is a financial matter, it is not appropriate that the House of Lords' authority should also be necessary. There is no time limit in the Bill on the Agency's expenditure, but before Parliament is called upon to approve a raising of the limit, we shall have before us several annual reports of the Agency including details of the exercise of its industrial enterprise function. I hope I can persuade the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) that it would be quite wrong to impose yet another restriction within that overall limit. I have to advise my hon. Friends to resist the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I should make clear that in normal circumstances we would have pressed this amendment, which we regard as important. However, on the previous amendment we established the importance we attach to financial control. We are working in very difficult circumstances and there is an important debate to follow. For that reason alone, I beg to ask leave to with draw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18

THE AGENCY AND THE MEDIA

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 12, line 17, leave out from 'State' to end of line 23 and insert:
'may direct that the Agency or a subsidiary of the Agency shall not be under any duty imposed by subsection (5) or (6) above during such time as the direction is in force.'.
This amendment fulfils an undertaking given in Committee. It makes the drafting subsection (7) more concise, but that is not its primary object. Its main purpose is to make even clearer, though we thought there should never have been any doubt about it, that directions given by the

Secretary of State to allow the Agency or its subsidiaries to retain media interests are not intended to be permanent.
The Government's intention is that these directions will continue in operation only for as long as there is a danger of serious commercial injury being caused to a newspaper or periodical if the WDA or its subsidiaries were obliged to dispose of their interest. A similar amendment was made to the Industry Bill during its Committee stage in the House of Lords.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The amendment proposed is clearly an improvement on the form of words at present used in sub-section (7), but we are not altogether happy with the clause, which allows the Agency in certain circumstances to acquire share capital in companies involved in the media. However, it is the Government's declared intention that the Agency should rid itself of any such holdings as soon as possible, providing no harm is done thereby to the media. The amendment deals with the powers of the subsection to direct the Agency to suspend the disposal of media interests when commercial injury may occur. It is an improvement on the present wording and involves no change in the substance of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

ACQUISITION, DISPOSAL AND APPROPRIATION OF LAND

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 13, line 39 at end insert—
'(3A) Except as provided by section 15(4) above, the Agency shall not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, dispose of land for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 46, in page 13, line 39, at end insert—
'(3A) Except as provided in section 15(4) of this Act, the Agency shall not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, dispose of or grant a lease of land for a consideration less than the return that can reasonably be obtained.'

Mr. Jones: In order to facilitate progress, let me just say that Amendment No. 45 makes the point sought by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) on


Amendment No. 46 rather more accurately.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Government Amendment is almost identical to our own and we acknowledge a common debt to the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill, which included our amendment from the start. It is based on local authority law and practice. With reference to Section 15(4) referred to in the amendment, can the Minister confirm that the Agency can only dispose of land free of charge if it is to be used as a public open space and that if it is to be used by a local authority or a new town corporation for any other purpose, the authority will have to pay for it and the works carried out on it?

Mr. Barry Jones: I can confirm that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

POWERS OF ENTRY

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 14, line 42, after 'their', insert 'statutory'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50.

Mr. Jones: Amendment No. 47 is purely a drafting amendment and no comment is necessary.
Amendment No. 48, although a drafting amendment, requires some explanation. It is designed to make it clearer that the authority required for the carrying out of works on land held by statutory undertakers and to which a statutory undertaker has objected is that of the Minister responsible for the statutory undertaking in question. If that amendment is accepted, Amendment No. 49 automatically follows in so far as a definition of "appropriate Minister" is required. Amendment No. 49 provides that definition.
Amendment No. 50 is associated with it. This amendment extends the existing definition of statutory undertakers in Clause 26 to include specifically the Post Office, the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Coal Board and, more generally, any other authorities, bodies or undertakers which, by virtue of any enactment, are treated as statutory undertakers

for purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 14, line 43, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Clause 26

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 17, line 16, at end insert—
'"the appropriate Minister" in relation to any statutory undertakers in relation to whom it is defined by section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or any other Act, has the meaning assigned to it by the Act so defining it;'.
No. 50, in page 17, line 25, leave out from 'undertakers"' to end of line 27 and insert—
'means—

(a) persons authorised by virtue of any enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking, or any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power or water, and
(b) the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Coal Board, the Post Office and any other authority, body or undertakers which by virtue of any enactment are to be treated as statutory undertakers for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

and "statutory undertaking" shall be construed accordingly;'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Clause 27

ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 18, line 5, leave out ' this Act' and insert—
'any provision of this Act other than section 21 '.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

Clause 28

CITATION, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 18, line 11, leave out '(No. 2)'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 18, line 16, at end add—
'(3) Section 1(5) above and paragraphs 13 and 21 of Schedule 1 below extend to Northern Ireland, but none of the other provisions of the Act so extends.'.


The purpose of the amendment is to exclude the provisions of the Act, with certain exceptions, from extending to Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE WELSH INDUSTRIAL ESTATES CORPORATION

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 23, line 11, leave out 'persons' and insert 'any person'.

No. 56, in page 23, line 13, leave out 'are' and insert 'is'.—[Mr. Barry Jones.]

Schedule 3

FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGENCY

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 25, line 16, leave out 'such sums to the Agency' and insert
'to the Agency such sums—

(a) without prejudice to section 11(14) above, in respect of administrative expenses relating to any of their functions, and
(b) such other sums'.

No. 58, in page 25, line 42, at end insert—
'(4) References to borrowing in this paragraph do not include borrowing under section 11 above.'.

No. 59, in page 26, line 4, after 'borrow', insert
'from him under paragraph 3 above'.

No. 60, in page 27, line 24, leave out '10' and insert '11'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified]

8.42 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill, as I have said previously, is a historic one for Wales. It is the first wholly Welsh Bill dealing with major economic and environmental questions, and a wide spectrum of opinion in Wales looks to the powers it contains to make a real contribution to overcoming some of our most deep-rooted problems. The Welsh Development Agency will be the vehicle for tackling some of the obstacles which stand in the way of the growth

of a vigorous and dynamic economy in Wales.
The Government's intention to introduce this measure was made clear in their manifesto. A year later finds us in the closing stages of the Bill, and the Agency will be in operation by the beginning of next year. I have been encouraged at the wide measure of support the Bill has received throughout the Principality, with some exceptions.
I was sad to read that in the Liverpool Daily Post on 4th March this year the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that it was
little more than a glorified land clearance authority".
He went on in his statement to say:
It is quite clear that the Secretary of State for Wales has lost the battle to achieve a really powerful and useful weapon in the fight for economic development for Wales.
He went on to say that the Agency is
little more than window-dressing".
That was a sad comment. I hope that he will not now do a political somersault and try to seek credit for it at the same time.
The Bill has been changed partly by amendments inserted by the Government and partly by amendments accepted by the Government. In the process we have had to restore certain important measures which were removed in another place. If they had not been restored, the ability of the Agency to help in the regeneration of Welsh industry would have been significantly reduced.
The attempt to delay and then to draw some of the teeth of this important Bill will not have gone unnoticed in the Principality. The Opposition Peers cut away at some of the crucial powers which the Agency needs to enable it to make a powerful contribution to improving the health of the Welsh economy. In the present serious economic situation, Wales will look to the Agency to use the whole armoury of its considerable powers to push forward the re-invigoration of the economy in Wales. I do not apologise for repeating what has been said by many other people on other occasions: private enterprise, notwithstanding the virtues which hon. Members opposite attribute to it, has not succeeded in meeting the total needs of the present-day economy, and the Agency will seek to remedy some


of its deficiencies. The Agency will have a number of important functions to perform. It will continue to carry out the work previously done by the Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation.
The Agency will be responsible for the work of clearing derelict land and for improving the environment, establishing close relationships with the local authorities, which, together with the Derelict Land Unit, have done such good work, and enabling us to enjoy the improved appearance of the landscape and also providing us with sorely needed land on which to build our new factories.
A novel function will be the provision of finance for industry; the Agency will also be able to carry on industrial undertakings itself, a function which it will undertake through subsidiaries. It is in this field that we shall look to the Agency to show flair and imagination in deploying its resources so that it can help to maintain industrial activity in Wales at a high level. It is for this reason that I feel grieved that Opposition Peers chose to remove this important function from the Agency.
A deal of concern has been expressed about the unfair competition which some people think will face existing firms from undertakings which the Agency may set up or support. We have said it before—and I say it again—that it is not intended that the Agency's undertakings would be put in the privileged position of being able to compete on unfair terms. One of the purposes of the Agency is to safeguard employment, and it could hardly claim to be doing that if it exercised its industrial functions in such a way that the position and prospects of existing firms were damaged. The board of the Agency, some of whose members will have direct experience of the industrial and commercial world, will carry out its functions responsibly and sensibly.
There has been much debate over the rôles of the Agency and the NEB. Guidelines setting out the relationship between the two organisations will be drawn up in consultation with the Agency and NEB and following discussions with interested bodies such as the CBI and TUC.
Secondly, I envisage that the Agency and NEB will develop a close and harmonious working relationship both to

ensure their own smooth functioning and to avoid any risk of overlap in their dealings with industries and firms. Let me make it quite clear that the Agency will in no way be an arm or an agent of the NEB. The Agency will be a major public body in its own right.
What is important now is that we should make rapid progress to bring the Agency into operation so that it can make an early start on the tasks which face it. I have already announced that the headquarters will be located at Treforest, some 10 miles north of Cardiff. I was strongly influenced in this decision by the fact that the headquarters of the Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation, whose functions the Agency will subsume, is already located there. The Agency may need to set up one or more sub-offices in the Principality, but this will be for it to decide.
From the administrative point of view, the next important step will be to form the Organising Committee, the advance guard as it were of the Agency, which will have the responsibility of getting the Agency operational as smoothly as possible. We are now in process of recruiting a chief executive, and I hope shortly to be able to announce the names of the chairman and other board members.
The Agency will be taking over the staff of the Welsh Industrial Estates Corporation, and I am anxious that their assimilation into the Agency should take place smoothly. Some preliminary meetings have already been held with the appropriate Whitley Council and with local staff representatives, but the consultative process will now become more purposeful as our intentions become clearer. I place considerable importance on the need to ensure that staff interests are taken fully into account so that any problems which arise can be resolved with understanding and in the full knowledge of all the circumstances.
The question of the accountability of the Agency has been raised more than once. I shall set out to establish a relationship with the Agency which will enable me to account to Parliament for its activities and at the same time ensure that initiative is not stifled because of over-detailed control. I shall, of course, be meeting the chairman regularly. He will, therefore, be aware of my thinking


and my intentions, and I shall be able to keep myself informed of possible developments in the Agency's plans and policies at an early stage in their formulation.
The Government have demonstrated their faith in the Agency by allocating a budget of £100 million, which can be raised to £150 million by resolution of this House. At a time when there is severe pressure on finances, this illustrates the importance which the Government attach to the need to provide this spur to the economic development of Wales. I have no doubt that the Agency will become an important instrument in helping to tackle the very real problems which face us. That is why I commend this Welsh Development Agency Bill to the House.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Grist: I wish to say a few words on Third Reading because the Secretary of State appears to have fallen into the trap into which we saw him falling from the outset. He has overlarded the hopes of the Welsh people by promising far too much. The eventual result will be disappointment and a certain amount of bitterness and disillusionment. Such an attitude is foolish when we know that the economy will get into deeper waters. The Government should wait until we pull out of our difficulties before they take any action.
Conservatives believe that private enterprise has not failed in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I cannot understand the basis on which the Agency is to operate its competitive sectors. We have been told that it will be subject to the usual City code, but there is a big difference in that a State business cannot go bankrupt. If money is wasted or foolishly invested, the Agency can never go out of business. That is a very real difference, and it is foolish for Ministers to pretend that they do not understand the situation. I give them more credit than that.
The Secretary of State said that the Agency's undertakings would not be put in a privileged position; but it will find itself in that situation if it has a minority shareholding in a company, whether by agreement or otherwise or via a willing seller. Indeed, the fact that it may

be a "willing seller" may not be known to the directors, as the Minister will know from correspondence which I have recently conducted with him. That Agency will have an undue influence out of all proportion to any other possible shareholding.
I must voice the fears of the Opposition because we do not welcome an extension into entrepreneurial business by the State machine—an extension which, on the Secretary of State's own terms, threatens to grow.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: In the concluding stages of the Bill it would be remiss of me not to wish the Agency well in its work. Unfortunately, I missed the opening passages of the Secretary of State's speech, but I understand that he referred to some comments I made when the Agency was starting out upon its road. Some of the fears which we had about the Bill have proved to be groundless, and I hope that this will be found to be the case when the Agency is an entity.
We have some reservations about the Bill. We are concerned about the way in which the Agency will work in co-operation with the National Enterprise Board. We accept that these matters will develop as time goes by, and no doubt the two bodies will co-exist and co-operate. We shall discover whether this is the case only from experience. We shall see how the Agency works, and we hope that it will work successfully. We have reservations on the point about co-ordination, on which we forced a vote. Even though it is not in the Bill, I appeal for the element of co-ordination to be given consideration as the Agency goes about its work.
I noted what the Secretary of State said about the matter of financial resources. We accept that at present there is a limitation on the amount of finance available. We should have liked more finance to be made available to the Agency. We should have liked the figure to be nearer £500 million over a period. Therefore, the question is over what period will the £100 million or £150 million be drawn up and used? It is important to find work for the 70,000 unemployed people in Wales and for our school leavers.
We are glad that the Bill has been introduced. My colleagues and predecessors have called for the creation of


such a body as the Agency for a number of years. This is the first step forward, and we hope that our faith in the Agency to help to solve the problems of Wales will not be misplaced. We wish the Agency the best fortune in its work, and we hope that it will bring the results which are so badly needed.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: On behalf of the Welsh Liberals, I congratulate the Secretary of State on making a move in the right direction. The need for some kind of development agency in Wales has been plain for some time, but I have reservations, and I believe that to achieve any sort of unified policy for Wales the Agency must come under the control of the Welsh Assembly. I consider it to be a defect in the Bill that the Assembly is not even mentioned.
On behalf of the people in my constituency and in other parts of Mid-Wales, I wish the Agency the best for the future. If we can retain the young people in Mid-Wales and in other parts of Wales for many years to come, it will be of benefit to all concerned.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In the context of the present economic disaster, I do not regard the Bill as being particularly important. Though it contains desirable parts, particularly those dealing with the questions of co-ordination and development land, the Bill has had too much claimed for it, and those claims are no more than a delusion and pretence, like the advance factories which the Secretary of State always boasts about and which stand empty all over Wales but which give the impression that he is doing something when all the time his profligate policies are throwing men and women out of work.
We have elaborated our objections to the Bill at length in Committee, and I need not repeat the arguments. We believe that the Agency as constituted will encourage a misdirection of resources, both human and financial, in a series of dubious ventures, when, if such resources are to be made available, they should be concentrated on improving the industrial infrastructure and the conditions in which private industry can succeed. We fear that we shall see a gradual enlarge-

ment of the public sector, the creation of an odd and disastrous conglomerate of industrial enterprises, producing the wrong goods in the wrong place at the wrong price.
We seek to create an economy based on variety and choice and upon a profitable, vigorous and alert private sector. We do not have much confidence in an alternative based upon bureaucratic direction. We object to the very wide powers of direction assumed by the Secretary of State. He said in an interview with the Liverpool Daily Post:
It will not be a free-standing corporation. It will be an Agency of the Minister.
We are critical of the lack of adequate financial disciplines, in terms both of the duties to be imposed on the Agency and of the supervision of another large tranche of Government expenditure. We do not have confidence in the Government's ability to control such expenditure or to get value for money, and it is their failure to do so which is largely responsible for the fact that 64,300 people are out of work in Wales today.
Finally, we deplore the fact that, having taken these immense powers on the basis that they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, however inadequate, the Government are unwilling to give the assurance to which we are entitled—that they will not now surrender those powers to another body, a national assembly. In my view the tragedy is that the Secretary of State could have set up an Agency that would have been able to do valuable work with the wholehearted support and good will of both sides of industry and all the political parties. There is a place for an Agency, and now that we have one, however great its imperfections may be, we must make it work and achieve at least some of the hopes which the Secretary of State held out for it.
Certainly for our part, now that the Agency is coming into existence, we shall do our best to make it a success. We do not want to delay these proceedings further. We want to use the rest of the evening to have a discussion on the real issues that now confront us in Wales. For that reason, we do not, at this stage, intend to divide the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: We have heard a Cassandra-like speech from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards).
He is far too pessimistic. My right hon. and learned Friend's policies are the right ones for Wales.
In the Welsh Office, with a Labour Government in power, we have always said that the fundamental economic problems in Wales still have to be solved. I reject the contention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) that we have pitched this Bill and its aims too high.
It is sad but a reality of life that all parts of the Principality have their problems. In some cases the Agency will be helping to resolve the problems of the past in the valleys of South Wales and of de-population in Mid-Wales. It will also look to the future—for example, Celtic Sea oil development and all its implications for South-West Wales. Each part of Wales is important. The Agency will have a vital rôle to play in my own part of the Principality.
I am immensely optimistic about the contribution which the Agency can, and will, make to the economic development of North Wales as a whole—halting depopulation, instigating industry, moving the great slate and coal tips in the Wrexham area and regenerating and revitalising our industrial base. My optimism is shared by fellow countrymen throughout the length and breadth of the country. I am not saying that the Agency will be a panacea for all the problems which beset us, but it is undoubtedly a major step in the right direction.
I conclude by pointing out that the Agency is brought to fruition by this Government within a year of coming to office.

Question out and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

9.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): It would be inappropriate to open the Welsh Day debate of this Session without reference to the death in August of our old colleague Jim Griffiths, the charter Secretary of State for Wales and the founder of the Welsh Office. His favourite words were "Deuparth gwaith ei ddechreu"—Beginning is half the battle. The foundations were well and truly laid. He started this new Welsh institution soundly, and all of us, of all parties, concerned with serving the people of Wales remember him and his contribution with both pride and affection. I believe that he would have been pleased with the milestone we have reached tonight in the setting up of a new Welsh body—the Welsh Development Agency—second only in importance, in my view, to the creation of the Welsh Office itself.
The ground we have just covered is a vital input to our consideration of the Welsh infrastructure. We will take that as read. There are many areas where I have direct or oversight responsibility which I would have liked to mention, but the House will understand if, given the time available, I deal with only some, leaving my hon. Friend the Member for the Rhondda (Mr. Jones), the Undersecretary of State, to cover some of the others.
First, the economy. In all our deliberations tonight the problems of the economy must inevitably be dominant. The twin evils of inflation and unemployment have to be conquered in Wales as in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is a battle that we have to win. We have to win it in Britain, and we have to win it in Wales.
Both sides of industry in Wales are determined to tackle the problems ahead. A fortnight ago the Prime Minister and I, with a number of my right hon. Friends, met the Wales TUC at 10 Downing Street. We have its agreement to limit wage increases to a maximum of £6 per week. The Wales TUC is deeply concerned, as we all are in Wales, about unemployment, particularly of the young. It knows the need to remain competitive in world


markets. It is indicative of the attitude in Wales on the shop floor that stoppages due to industrial disputes during the past quarter were the lowest for three years.
During my recent visit to the United States in search of new industry with the Development Corporation mission, I set out fully and frankly our problems and explained how we would tackle them. The Mansager mission recently came to Wales and was impressed by the joint efforts and the will to succeed in Wales. A team of trade unionists in Wales, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and the Rhondda, came to London before the visit so as to be available to answer questions on the journey down to Wales. I believe that then, and in the course of their journeys in Wales, our American visitors were impressed by the evident team effort of Welsh industry.
Our primary task is to overcome inflation. While I cannot pretend that our September measures will do more than alleviate the worst effects of unemployment, they will have an impact in both the short and the medium term.
In the short term, job opportunities will be created with school leavers particularly in mind. Nothing is more demoralising for the school leaver than to go out into a brave new world and find that he or she has no job to go to. Nevertheless, the figures of unemployed school leavers are down from 9,000 to 5,000, though a proportion of the reduction may be accounted for by those returning for further study. School leavers must have a measure of priority, and it is good to note that in the first 10 days of the Temporary Recruitment Subsidy for School Leavers Scheme 103 employers in Wales have made applications. I am sure that the House will be interested to know the latest available figure. The Manpower Services Commission's Work Creation Scheme is also operational and is now considering projects.
In the medium term, we are aiming at the stimulation of investment in industry which has been our particular blind spot in this country. In Wales in particular we are suffering acutely from a previous failure to invest. Thus our injection of £20 million for advance factories and our scheme for assistance to the hard-hit construction industry—details of the latter are

at present being finalised—are aimed at stimulating the economy, and Wales will be benefiting directly from these measures.
I want now to deal with advance factories. The Welsh share of the £20 million allocated for advance factories is £3¼ million, which I believe fairly reflects our needs. This will enable us to make a major addition to the 660,000 sq.ft. we have already approved since taking office 19 months ago. The total will now be boosted to over 900,000 sq.ft. in 19 months, compared with little over 400,000 sq.ft. in three and a half years by the previous administration.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: rose—

Mr. Morris: I usually give way, but on this occasion, in fairness to the House, I shall not do so. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
In deciding on the distribution of this new allocation within Wales I have decided to reserve a small proportion to meet the needs of firms already in Wales whose efficiency and potential expansion is being limited by having to operate in obsolete or constricted premises. Not only am I prepared to re-let vacant Government factories to rehouse firms facing such difficulties but I am prepared to let advance factories to firms already in Wales which can offer satisfactory additional employment prospects. This is an important development in our policy on advance factories, and the basis of it is that indigenous Welsh firms should be enabled to make an ever-increasing contribution to the solution of our problems. Hon Members have brought examples to my attention recently. A firm may have excellent potential for growth which is being stunted because it is operating in grossly inefficient premises. We have winners in Wales, and I believe that they should be backed. This is an important new policy.
The bulk of the new allocation will be used to meet our prime need to attract new manufacturing enterprises to Wales from outside. Having taken account of the unemployment situation—and the prospects—of each area within the Principality, the availability of land, and having also had regard to the advance factories from previous programmes which will become available for letting


in increasing numbers as the months go by, I have decided on the following distribution: two factories for Wrexham and one each for Llantrisant, Caerphilly, South Glamorgan, Rhymney Valley, Blaenau Gwent, Ammanford, and Bangor, plus one near Shotton. There will also be four smaller factories in Cardiff, four smaller ones in Swansea, and two more in Anglesey. In addition, I am allocating two factories to Bagillt, thus taking account of the fact that the local authority would like to build factories on its own site, but cannot do so because of shortage of funds. In all, this adds up to a total of over a quarter of a million square feet.
Today's announcement covers 22 new factories, ranging in size from 5,000 sq.ft. to 25,000 sq.ft. Our previous programmes covered 72 new factories. This makes a grand total of 94 new Government-financed factories approved by this Government—94 in 19 months, compared with 25 in three and half years by the previous Government. [Interruption.] I have been asked questions on this matter before, which I have answered. The Opposition should know the answers by now.
The new programme of £3¼ million will be a major boost for the Principality, and it comes about in part as a result of our anticipated receipts from the European Regional Development Fund. Putting it another way, I doubt whether I should have been able to announce anywhere near as large a programme for Wales today but for the existence of the RDF—and, if I may say so, our persistence in making claims on it.
On the EEC front generally, the Welsh Office has continued to play a very full part in all aspects of the Government's participation in Community activities and we have continued to develop our close relations with the Commission.
Furthermore, this is only the first round of a continuing arrangement. The next phase will involve schemes which are being undertaken by public authorities in Wales. We have submitted a substantial block of these schemes to Brussels and are confident that the outcome will be most satisfactory. All this has not been achieved without an enormous amount of hard and enthusiastic work by

the Welsh Office. For several months we have sought to identify schemes which satisfied the criteria laid down in the Fund regulations and we have pursued the interests of Wales—and of public authorities in Wales—with vigour and imagination. That is not simply my opinion; it is also the view of such experienced officials of the EEC as Mr. Gwyn Morgan. Indeed, he claims that Wales has led the way—and that all the credit for that is due to the Welsh Office.
So far as the next tranche of projects is concerned, those which are approved will qualify for grants of up to 30 per cent., which will be passed on to the promoting authorities. Hard cash will, therefore, be channelled to Welsh authorities—direct grants which will have the effect of reducing their borrowing requirements and, hence, their loan charges.
When the decisions are taken by the Fund Management Committee the Welsh Office will be right there, and it will be my officials who will be presenting the Welsh applications. We hear a great deal about the need for a Welsh voice in Brussels. The truth is that the Welsh voice—the Welsh Office voice—is already being heard loud and clear at the EEC on each and every occasion when Welsh interests are involved. The Welsh voices are not those of expatriate officials but of officials whose day-to-day work in Cardiff enables them to maintain the closest contact with the Welsh scene.
I now turn to agriculture. The recent trends in livestock numbers shown by the provisional results of the June census are as unsatisfactory from the Government's point of view as they are from that of the industry. Inflation, which has made such a savage impact on farmers' costs, coupled with difficult and most unusual weather conditions, has been the prime cause. The latest fodder prospects are more reassuring, although much will obviously depend on the length and severity of the winter.
To assist the hill and upland sectors, we advanced the qualifying date for hill cow subsidies from 4th June to 1st January. This will apply also in 1976. The new beef régime and the announcement of target prices for the beef premium into the New Year are encouraging fatteners to buy store cattle. This confidence is


confirmed in the price levels of suckled calves and store cattle sales, which to date have been very satisfactory for both buyers and sellers.
In the sheep sector the benefits of the 20 per cent. increase in the guarantees and the increase in hill subsidies are apparent. There was a 30 per cent. increase in marketings of fat lambs in the three months June, July and August of this year. Overall Welsh farmers are now fattening two-thirds of the Welsh lamb crop. Very satisfactory prices for breeding ewes and store lambs in the autumn sales are also apparent.
Both my right hon. Friend and I are, however, deeply conscious of the situation in the dairy sector, and we have been able to take positive action to improve dairy farmers' returns. The average guaranteed price for the 1975–76 year will now be 4 per cent. above the price set at the 1974 Annual Review; that is to say, 37·04p per gallon compared with 26·27p.
I have continued to meet representatives of the farming industry in Wales. I know their concern whether the new price will be sufficient to restore confidence. In this context I would particularly stress the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in his statement of 15th October when he said that there would be scope for a further increase at the beginning of the next milk year, to be decided after the Annual Review.
Next, I turn to public expenditure. I know that this is a matter that is causing anxiety to the Conservative Front Bench, although it is not always consistent on this score. Any counter-inflationary policy implies some check to demand. It would be inconsistent to hold back demand on one side while letting spending by Government, central or local, maintain continuing inflationary pressure on the economy. We have thus had to apply checks to some local authority spending on items—health, education and social services—which are of intimate concern to us all. We must try to see that this is done with compassion and that the poor and needy are protected as far as possible.
In the health field, for example, I am afraid that we must, in prudence, be prepared with plans to run the health service to the best possible benefit of our people on the basis that there may be very little,

if any, growth of resources in the next few years. One major problem will be that of priorities and of choice which must be faced in a service where demand will always expand to outstrip resources.
I do not believe that there is cause for despair. I repeat that the health service is not breaking down; nor are the personal social services. We shall weather the difficulties, and in the meantime, with the help of the Royal Commission, we shall prepare ourselves for the time when we can again make greater strides forward.
Our efforts must be concentrated on defeating inflation. This is our overriding concern. Without success here, all our aspirations will be lost. In the local authority sector it is for local authorities to decide how best they can meet the need to moderate their expenditure next year. However, it is valuable for us to be able to have discussions with the authorities, through their associations, on policy matters which have major financial implications. The Welsh Consultative Council, which I set up and chaired, has met twice. I am convinced of the usefulness of this new machinery.
I turn now to housing. Since we entered office, my colleagues and I have made a determined effort to tackle the problems of housing in Wales. We want more new houses. We want a blood transfusion into our older housing stock, to extend its life and improve living conditions.
New housebuilding shows a marked improvement. In spite of everything, in the public sector, completions for the first eight months of 1975, at 5,233, are 114 per cent. up on the corresponding period for 1974 and already exceed the figures for the whole of 1974. Starts, at 6,132, in the same period, show an increase of 18 per cent. on the corresponding period in 1974. Since January of this year the Welsh Office has approved cost yardsticks for schemes involving 6,472 dwellings compared with 4,351 for the same period last year—an increase of 49 per cent. This is tangible evidence that housing authorities have responded well to the Government's call to expand their building programmes to meet the manifest need.
In the private sector, too, there is an encouraging upward trend. In the first eight months of 1975 starts at 4,660 show


a 3 per cent. increase over the corresponding 1974 figure, while completions, at 5,942, also show a slight increase over the corresponding period in 1974. This means that over 11,000 new houses have been provided in Wales this year, and there are another four months still to come. Thus, once again real progress is being made—not as much as we would wish, not as much as any of us would wish—but it is there.
Unfortunately, there has had to be a limitation of money spent by local authorities on improving their council houses. The first priority was contractual commitments that had to be honoured. This, unfortunately, left no scope for any new improvement schemes to be included this year. Next year there will be a further allocation and we will seek to ensure that the money goes where the need is greatest.
The same problem has arisen on local authority lending. Because of our older housing stock this is a facility in intense demand in Wales, and by 26th June I had to suspend lending as the total allocation for 1975–76 had already been committed.
This halt is, I hope and believe, temporary. I am reviewing the situation, but cannot at present say when lending can be resumed. In the meantime, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was able to tell the House on Monday 13th October, the Building Societies Association has stepped in by making available an additional £5 million worth of money for mortgages lending in Wales.
On derelict land reclamation, I am glad to be able to tell the House that local authorities will tomorrow be receiving details of a number of schemes—involving public expenditure of £13·2 million—which have been selected for grant-aid assistance in the current and the two succeeding financial years.
If I might adapt the famous epitaph to Sir Christopher Wren—if Members want proof of the value of this work, look around. At Cilfynydd—th Albion tip; at Aberaman—the 100 acre industrial park; at Troedyrhiw and at Gowerton, at Corris and Blaenau Ffestiniog and other places. Derelict land reclamation is proceeding in Wales with a momentum and success of which all involved can be proud.
I now turn briefly to devolution. As the House knows, we intend to publish a White Paper in the near future setting out our detailed proposals for devolution to Wales and Scotland. This White Paper will present the results of many months of intensive, and may I say arduous, study of constitutional problems of great complexity and importance. We have been determined to produce a workable and stable scheme which will be widely acceptable. I believe such a scheme will be presented, and I certainly will welcome the constructive scrutiny and debate which I trust will follow.
In this context I should like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on one matter. There have been recent statements made or reported in the Press which have implied that civil servants have obstructed the Government's work on devolution. I regret to say that some of these statements have been made by hon. Members opposite. I want to refute those allegations as quite baseless. In the immensely complex and difficult task to which I have referred civil servants have, as they always do, served the Government loyally, impartially and well. I know that we shall receive that same loyalty in the equally difficult tasks which lie ahead in implementing our proposals which, when approved, will bring such benefits to the people of Wales. I do not mind being attacked. My skin is thick enough. But I do object when people who cannot defend themselves are attacked.
I am aware that there are many areas I should have covered had there been time. I hope, though, that what I have said will make it clear that we have our priorities right in the Welsh Office. Jobs and homes are still our main preoccupation. Since 1st July, moreover, when I assumed new industrial powers, the economic aspects of my executive responsibilities have broadened. This brings to the Welsh Office a new workload of the utmost importance to the life of Wales. Whatever the difficulties, and indeed because of them, our task is to prepare and plan for the future. Hence, for example, the drive to build the M4, the enlarged advance factory programme and the ongoing derelict land programme.
It has been a Session without parallel for Welsh legislation. The imaginative


concept of the Welsh Development Agency has already won public approval. The Land Authority for Wales will provide the basis for the comprehensive development of our community land legislation throughout Wales. I believe that the least we can do for our people is to provide the institutions that are required—the tools that are needed for the job in hand—to improve the quality of life and to carry out our policies for ensuring a firm basis for prosperity in the years to come.
These are difficult times for all of us. There is so much to be done, and the resources are so limited. But although we must disappoint some immediate expectations, we must not forget how much is being achieved right throughout Wales.
I am sure the House would wish me, in conclusion, to express its thanks to the many thousands, in every walk of life—public service in particular—who serve Wales and who make this progress possible.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Government have been in office for almost 20 months. It is 19 months since we have had a Welsh day debate on the Floor of the House, and it is a matter for censure that, after this exceptionally long period, the Leader of the House has given us only one hour and 56 minutes in which to debate all the affairs of Wales. He has fobbed us off with a mere stopgap after the debate on the Welsh Development Agency Bill.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I will not give way. The Secretary of State has set an example. As we have only one hour and 56 minutes, it would be better if none of us gave way.
It is also a matter for censure that even the extra hour we insisted upon was granted rather grudgingly, and if the Leader of the House had had his way we should have had only 56 minutes in which to debate all these wide responsibilities of the Welsh Office. It is further a matter for censure that the Leader of the House should have told hon. Members at Business Questions last week that more time had been given to Wales this

Session than for many Sessions past. I regret to say that that statement was simply untrue. Apart from the Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill and some private Adjournment debates, there has been no Welsh debate since March 1974.
It is not enough to say that we have had the Welsh Grand Committee. We have had no more discussion in the Grand Committee than in the preceding period. Indeed, we have had rather less. Neither the proceedings of the Grand Committee nor those on a specific Bill are the substitute for the wide-ranging debate on Welsh affairs that is traditional. These shabby proceedings are an insult to the House and an insult to the people of Wales.
Unhappily, we seem to have a Leader of the House of Commons who is insensitive to these matters and impervious to criticism. Perhaps at least the Secretary of State feels some sense of shame about what has occurred or perhaps there has been no debate because he feels a sense of shame about two sets of figures which condemn him and which form the text for this debate. These are the figures for industrial production and for unemployment.
The figures for industrial production are so bad that when I first heard them in the House I could not believe that I had heard them correctly. There is nothing in the record comparable with the drop of 10 points from the previous quarter. It is the sharpest downturn since the 1930s. It takes industrial production in Wales back to the level of 1967. The fall was more than twice that of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The fall in manufacturing output is even more catastrophic, down by nearly 13 points in the quarter, by nearly 24 points from the peak in 1973, and nearly eight points worse than in the three-day week. Under this Labour administration we have the production of a two-day week achieved in five. Iron and steel production fell by 43 per cent. in the quarter, and it is a staggering and disturbing fact that the level of production is now little more than half what it was five years ago.
These figure are the measure of the Government's failure in Wales. For all the euphemisms about development agencies and advance factories, in 20 months they have ruined Welsh Industry


They cannot blame it all on the world recession. Production in Wales has fallen far more than in any other Western industrial country and it is still falling. However, in the same quarter that production in Wales fell from 105 to 94, in Japan it rose and in America in the same quarter it rose at an annual rate of 1·9 per cent., and has accelerated sharply since. The Government base their hopes and policies on the expectation that the capitalist countries will rescue them from their crisis of Socialism.
The second set of figures are those for unemployment. Unemployment in Wales at 76,496 in September and 70,447 this month is now almost exactly at the same level at it was in the autumn of 1940 and the highest since 1941 except for two freak months in 1947. The seasonally adjusted figure this month at 64,300, which provides a better standard of judgment of our economic state, is at its highest level since 1946, again excepting those two frozen months of 1947. The seasonally adjusted figure is over 13,000 higher than under any Conservative Government since the war, and 17,500 higher than in any autumn since the war.
The number of unemployed, excluding school leavers and adult students, is rising remorselessly at the rate of about 3,300 a month and at this rate there will be over 71,000 out of work by Christmas. Because of the lag that occurs between a fall in production and the corresponding fall in unemployment figures, it seems only too likely that some time next year there will be 100,000 out of work in Wales.
I shall deal later with unemployment, its causes and impact. However, the House may feel that it is entitled to judge these disastrous figures against the standards established by Labour Ministers and Labour Members. In 1971, when unemployment in Wales was 16,400 lower on the adjusted figures than it is today, the Secretary of State told the House:
If there is anything that thoroughly discredits the Government it is their complete failure to deal with the employment situation.
He said of the Opposition:
I do not know how familiar they are with the problems of people who month after month are being denied the opportunity of employment.

He described how he met them week by week in his constituency. He spoke again this evening of the tragedy of those leaving:
school, college or apprentice course—for whom the world which should be an oyster—".
At that time there were 1,100 school leavers unemployed in Wales. On 11th August this year there were 11,600, 10 times as many out of work, and over 9,000 were still unemployed in September. We have just heard that 5,000 are unemployed in October.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded his speech with the remarks:
people in Wales know that the Conservative Party is synonymous with unemployment, and they will not forget it."—[Official Report, 23rd November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1216–20.]
The reality is different. Labour is now the party of unemployment. In the valleys of Wales men and women who originally voted Labour because of unemployment now face unemployment because of Labour. I assure the Secretary of State that:
the people of Wales will not tolerate the high level of unemployment, the bankruptcy of the Government's policies, their apologies and their failure to do anything to avert the great human tragedies which occur in household after household from one end of Wales to the other."—[Official Report, 9th March 1972; Vol. 839, c. 1740.]
Those are the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he addressed the House then.
In August of the same year the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), when referring to a total of 51,500 unemployed, said that it was an absolute condemnation of the Government. In January of the same year the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said:
Even since the days of John Maynard Keynes, any Government allowing unemployment rates to rise not even as high as this rate"—
he was referring to 56,000—
have been guilty if not of a criminal act, certainly of criminal negligence"—[Official Report, 24th January 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1089.]
Let us look at that act of criminal negligence and see how it came about. Let us see why there is about 14 per cent. male unemployment in Anglesey and Pembroke Dock, 11 per cent. in Wrexham, almost as much in Brynmawr and Milford, and 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. in Conway, Pontypridd and Llandrindod


Wells. The major share of the blame rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the present Government.
Of course, Britain faces the problem of the commodity price increases and the world recession, but other countries faced up to that problem, took the necessary action and are now back on the road to expansion. Their unemployment figures now fall as ours rise. Britain failed to act, and is now in grave danger of being left behind.
The other set of problems are those of our own making, and they are far more intractable and far more important. For most of 1974 the Labour Government were much more interested in winning the October election than in the management of the economy. They increased Government expenditure, maintained consumer spending and allowed wages to rise, but squeezed margins and profits, placed an intolerable tax burden on industry and destroyed industrial confidence by a series of reckless measures. Industry has been caught in a Morton's fork, pinned between Government controls and escalating costs.
It seems likely that the rate of profits earned by companies in real terms has been halved since the early 1960s. As companies traditionally obtain three-quarters of their funds from internal sources, it is not surprising that they have failed to invest. It is not surprising that they have shed labour.
Inflation at the present level is a cancer. It destroys the firms that provide the jobs. The root cause of the inflation is excessive Government expenditure. In his first Budget speech of 1975, the Chancellor of the Exchequer called it a rake's progress and said that it had to stop, but the biggest debauchee was the Government themselves, and they have not finished their excesses yet. Spending this year is already up by 47 per cent. Is it to come out of the wage packet in taxes or by printing money? The Prime Minister has said that it will be provided by printing money, and the last quarter's money supply figures confirm that political admission.
There is no sign of a check. The Chancellor at the Mansion House made it clear, seven months after he said that the rake's progress had to come to an end, that there was to be a further spree.
Something has to give, and one of the things to give is capital investment. Labour Ministers spend most of their time these days talking about creating industrial investment. The Secretary of State spoke this evening of a previous failure to invest, but the immediate prospects is a drop of 15 per cent. in manufacturing investment this year followed by a further drop in 1976. That means more men and women out of work. It means that we shall not be ready for expansion when it comes.
The tragedy of the present situation is that hardly at all has it been caused by measures to check inflation. Those out of work have not even the satisfaction of knowing that their sacrifice is part of the price for curing the sickness. It is the sickness that has put them out of work. They are there because of the cowardice and folly of the Government in the past 20 months.
Before speaking of the cure, I want to say a word about the criticisms launched by the Secretary of State tonight and in a reply at Welsh Question Time which was as politically dishonest as it was inadequate. He suggested that I was debarred from proposing public expenditure cuts because I had pressed for benefits for my constituents. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that politics is about priorities. Should we go short of schools for Wales and, for example, spend £7 million on subsidising each production Concorde aircraft? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to decide his own priority.
The Secretary of State cannot, with honour, suggest that an hon. Member is disqualified from pressing a particular case while urging general economy; still less is an hon. Member disqualified if he spells out the choice and the economic realities behind it. I have repeatedly warned my constituents. At a great public meeting about our hospital I warned them again and urged them to select their priorities. After that meeting I wrote to the Under-Secretary a letter in which I set out the arguments very carefully. I said:
My party has urged the present Government to reduce the huge and immensely wasteful expenditure on blanket subsidies. We have urged you to halt your equally expensive and unnecessary expenditure on nationalisation. Within existing programmes, there is plenty of room for both economy and choice. I heard


on the BBC this week that £2 million had been made available in Wales for educational reorganisation, in other words the abolition of grammar schools. I have no doubt at all that my constituents, given a choice between spending money to save the lives of their children or the abolition of the grammar schools in Haverfordwest would prefer the money to be spent at Withybush. Equally I am sure that, given a choice between, for example, spending money on straightening bends on minor rural roads, a process which still continues, and having 14 extra children's beds, they would choose the beds. You cannot, therefore, dodge the issue or dismiss the case that has been advanced simply on grounds of economy. Anthony Crosland said over the weekend: 'The Government could not ignore public opinion in deciding which areas of public expenditure should have priority.' At a meeting in Haverfordwest last night, a large and representative audience unanimously resolved that this was their highest priority for public expenditure.
Afterwards, I returned to the subject and the local newspaper reported:
Pembrokeshire's M. P. Mr. Nicholas Edwards yesterday gave a clear warning to the hospital campaigners not to expect too much too soon. 'If there is going to be a general campaign for this and that in every direction. I personally think that will be a great mistake,' he declared….As an MP, it was his duty to represent the wishes of the people of Pembroke, but it was also his duty to tell people bluntly that in the current economic crisis, money could not be found for every desirable project.
I wonder how often the Secretary of State has been as blunt as that with his constituents. I only wish he would be that honest with the House and the Welsh people and tell them of the sacrifices that will be needed. Let us have no more of that sort of criticism and talk of hypocrisy from him. Let us have no more of his absurd theatricals to disguise the fact that the Government are failing to take the action necessary first to halt the reckless increase in public expenditure and then actually reduce it. When they start that task and begin to switch resources to the productive sector, there may for a time be more unemployment, although doing away with indiscriminate subsidies, which should be the first step, will add nothing to unemployment levels.
The sooner the job is started, the sooner it will be finished and the lower will be the level of peak unemployment. If the Government had done this any time in 1974, they would have started with a base of fewer than 40,000 unemployed. If they start now, the unemploy-

ment caused by their change of course will have to be added to the total of 63,000. If they delay, it may have to be added to a total of 100,000. The fever is much higher and the cure will be much more unpleasant, but if the Government shirk the cure and inflation runs right out of control, unemployment will be not 63,000 or 100,000, but double that.
It cannot all be done at once—the scale of the problem is too great for that—but the advance must be halted and there must be a real and massive reduction in public expenditure and a switch to the productive sector. This is the only way in which to improve living standards, enhance personal choice and preserve employment. If industry is to get on with its job of creating wealth, we must restore the environment in which it can do so. This is especially important for small businesses.
In May 1974 there were 4,637 factories and plants engaged in manufacturing in Wales. A total of 63 per cent. of them—9 per cent. more than in the United Kingdom—employed between one and 10 people. This adds up to almost one-quarter of the manufacturing work force. Nearly 4,000 of the 4,637 firms employed 50 people or fewer. This is the critical manufacturing sector. The overwhelming majority of concerns are small.
In the retail trade there are over 8,000 grocers employing 17,000 people. There are nearly 3,000 corner shops, confectioners, newsagents and the like employing about 13,000 people. Wales depends upon its small industries and small businesses, and no sector has been hit more by the nightmare of inflation, by the administrative nightmare imposed by Governments, by the nightmare of unjust pension contributions, and, above all, by the nightmare of taxation and rates. Further massive rate increases are now certain in Wales. Local spending seems likely to be about 40 per cent. up. These increases will fall harshly on the domestic ratepayer, but in many cases they will fall particularly harshly on the small businessman. The Government apparently have no consolation to offer on that front.
If Wales depends on its small businesses and small industries, it depends, too, on agriculture. In many parts of


Wales, in Carmarthen, Cardigan and Powys, over 20 per cent. of the working population is employed in the industry. A very high proportion of the labour force is engaged in work which is directly dependent upon agriculture. A recent study has shown that in Gwynedd about 18 per cent. of the direct income of households is derived from agriculture. The health of the industry is a matter of acute concern not just to farmers but to the whole of the community. This point has been brought home by the closures and lay-offs in dairies and factories in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen and elsewhere.
The story of agriculture in the last two years has not been happy. We have seen a catastrophic fall in farm incomes. We have had a series of stop-gap measures by the Government and delayed rescue operations which have done nothing to restore confidence. That confidence is badly shaken. In July the President of the FUW wrote to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Secretary of State about the
anger and anxiety felt by farmers".
He spoke of the Government following a policy which he described as "mistaken and ultimately destructive." He described a climate of "uncertainty, disillusionment and bitterness and said that farmers condemned the White Paper as "a cruel deception".
In this atmosphere created largely by political decisions—not by inflation and the state of the harvest, as was suggested today by the Secretary of State—it is hardly surprising that production has plunged. United Kingdom farm output is expected to fall by 7 per cent. this year. In Wales artificial insemination calvings are down 11 per cent. from the year before. The home production of butter has slumped from over 90,000 tons in 1972 to probably less than 30,000 tons this year. Huge quantities of cheese are being imported from Europe and Ireland.
I ask the straight question: what are the Government's intentions for the milk manufacturing sector? Do they want it, or do they intend to kill it and concentrate instead on the liquid milk market?
Nowhere has the impact of these events been felt more severely than in Wales, where the vast majority of farmers are engaged in livestock production. The collapse of the beef market last autumn,

entirely as a consequence of a political decision by the Government, cut Welsh hill farm incomes by at least 50 per cent. from a level already 17 per cent. below the average livestock farm income in England and Wales as a whole. That is why the unions have pushed so hard for an additional hill cow subsidy payment to tide the producers over until they have recouped their losses.
Prices are better this autumn, but they are by no means enough to restore what has been lost or to establish a basis for profits in the future. All this is the achievement of the present Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Wales. He boasts of the recent devaluation of the green pound. But even now it is insufficient, particularly in Wales, where the fodder situation is atrocious. In any case, this is the fourth change since October 1974. The Government's technique seems to be to push the victims head under the water until he has almost drowned and then take the credit for having picked him out again. The Secretary of State has been told within the last 20 hours by leaders of the Farmers' Union of Wales that what has been done is not enough and that if the milk industry is to be saved, further action is called for. The long-term tragedy is that short-term measures have been used in such a way as to dissipate the country's productive resources. We condemn the Government for their treatment of the industry.
I have some critical things to say about the Secretary of State's conduct of his office. There has without question been a deplorable deterioration in the standard of its efficiency in handling Members' correspondence. One used to hope that one would receive a reply from a Government Department inside three weeks, but the situation has now deteriorated sharply. We wait months, not weeks, and even then it frequently requires a series of letters and telephone calls to provoke a response. I asked my secretary yesterday to take a random sample of 10 letters out of the files. They included one reply taking 11½ weeks, one taking seven weeks, three taking four weeks and only half of them three weeks or less.
I also think it deplorable that so often the Secretary of State palms off the task


of receiving important deputations on to his Under-Secretaries; but worse is his refusal to see them at all. The Nationalist Party has tabled a motion about the Secretary of State's refusal to meet local authorities in Dyfed over the Cleddau Bridge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I have written to him strongly on the same subject. It seems to me that when a county council, a number of district councils and several local Members of Parliament together ask to see the Secretary of State about a matter which they believe to be of vital concern, it is insufferable arrogance for him to refuse.
It is no good the Secretary of State saying that he knows the facts already. Having refused to accept the representations that have been made to him and the recommendations of his own inspector, he should be prepared to hear at first hand the consequences of his decision. Nor is it any good his talking about public expenditure, because what we are now concerned about is not spending—that has been done—but whether payment should be made unfairly by the ratepayers or fairly by the taxpayers.
I have two other points that I wish to make. Both concern priorities about which—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State cannot talk about hypocrisy. He made one of the most hypocritical speeches that I have heard in the House when he talked about his concern about the Welsh economy, which he has brought to the point of disaster.
I have two other points that I wish to make. Both concern priorities, about which I spoke earlier. The Government face a difficult question of priorities in deciding the future of Shotton. It is a decision that has many implications not just for North-East Wales but for Port Talbot and for the future of the industry as a whole. It is urgent that a decision is not delayed much longer or the damage that will be done to the British Steel Corporation's investment programme will be considerable. As to the merits of the case, at a time when it is by no means clear that the big plants can be made to work efficiently, it may be no bad thing to have an insurance policy.
The other question of priorities concerns housing. The Government have decided to press on with their programme of municipalisation but have cut off—in Wales suddenly and without warning—the local authority mortgage scheme. They are concentrating resources on expensive new dwellings when in many cases at much lower cost they can ensure the modernisation and maintenance of older property, obtain the personal contribution of individual families to the purchase cost and to maintenance, and help to meet one of the strongest of human aspirations—home ownership.
I am certain that the Government have their priorities wrong. There is now a yawning gap that is not being adequately filled by the building societies. Hundreds of families are suffering disappointment and hardship because of this cruelly misjudged decision. I cannot imagine how the Secretary of State can call this policy a "blood transfusion" into our older housing stock.
I have charged the Government with many mistakes. I hope that at least they will show that they acknowledge one or two of them—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill [Lords] and the Cinematograph Films Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock or one hour after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — WELSH AFFAIRS

Mr. Edwards: But there is a need for a more massive change of heart and direction. Under this Labour Government, Wales faces the greatest catastrophe


known during the lifetime of half its population. Labour is a party of the past. It dwells in the past; but this is a tragedy of the present. Labour cannot now be content to relive the history of

40 years ago. It must face up to its own responsibility for the disaster that is destroying our country today. If it fails to do so, it is the people who will suffer and the people who will not forgive.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I wish to pay my tribute to the late James Griffiths. He was one of the most notable Welshmen of this century, and his contribution in so many spheres will be remembered and in some instances will be lasting. His work in double harness with another great Welshman, Aneurin Bevan, will be remembered for centuries. I followed him in the Welsh Office, and I shall always remember his personal kindness and friendship.
I hope that early in the new Session we shall have a full-scale debate on Welsh affairs. In the discussions on the Report stage of the Welsh Development Bill this afternoon many hon. Members were able to refer to problems in their constituencies and to their hopes for the Agency. However, I was disappointed to hear the jeremiad by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). It is something we have come to expect from him. On this occasion he had something to be gloomy about—but the trouble was that he seemed to enjoy his gloom. It becomes more inspissated under his dark wand.
It was the height of inequity for the hon. Gentleman to attribute blame for unemployment to the Labour Government. He turned only later to the world recession. Nobody can blame the Government for the unemployment situation. It was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Tory Front Bench, to seek to do so, because he knows it is not true. Are the present Labour Government responsible for unemployment in the United States, in France or in Italy? He well knows that the whole world is suffering from unemployment. Indeed, I believe that under a Labour Government we have suffered less than most.
The hon. Gentleman also had the gall to mention rate increases. Reorganisation in local government, the National Health Service and water undertakings was the responsibility of the Conservative Government, and I am sorry to say that that reorganisation has made a substantial contribution to the inflationary position of this country and to the increase in public expenditure. Therefore, if we are to discuss these matters, let it be on the basis of equity and fairness. That was the

great failure of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I should not have intervened in the debate were it not for the grave unemployment position in Anglesey. Although we are an island on the north coast of Wales, albeit a famous island—Mon Mam Cymru—on the periphery of affairs we have by dint of effort, enterprise and determination succeeded in constructing a new economy and industrial base since the war. It has not been easy, as hon. Members will appreciate. In 25 years or so we have increased our population by 25 per cent.; we have attracted new and stable manufacturing industry; our agriculture has, on the whole, prospered; and we have substantially improved the infrastructure.
We give everybody a warm welcome in Anglesey, but we do not like unemployment. We have seen too much of it in the past and have lost too many of our young people because of it and we want to see an end of it. The current unemployment figure is bad—11·2 per cent. of the insured population—and I should like to analyse it briefly for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends so that they may have some idea of the nature and depth of the problem.
Although I am anxious, I am not despondent, provided the Government approach the problem in a constructive way, as I believe they will. It is significant to note that of the total out-of-work population in Anglesey, including people under 18 years of age, about 75 per cent. are registered as having worked in the construction and service industries. There is also unemployment on the manufacturing side.
An encouraging factor is that manufacturing firms in Anglesey have held up well during the period of recession. That is something new in Anglesey, because in the past, when a recession took place, it was the industries on the periphery which suffered. The converse has been true in the past two or three years. I hope that manufacturing firms can sustain their present work force until the predicted upturn in the economy.
In the meantime there are some crucial projects which must be carried out, which


I believe will be carried out, in order to prevent a worsening of the position, and I should like to mention some of them.
First, council house schemes, even modest ones, can play their part in providing work while meeting the urgent need for houses. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about progress in that respect. Secondly, the Central Electricity Generating Board pump storage scheme at Llanberis, which is vital to the long-term interest to the nation as a whole, will provide work for a large number of men in Gwynedd over a number of years. Thirdly, the new general hospital at Bangor and the road span over the Brittania Bridge—two projects in which I have taken a close personal interest for many years—will be of vital importance.
None of those schemes is a luxury. Most of them are overdue by years. They are all located in a special development area and in a region of chronic high unemployment; and in a lean year, as I believe most of 1976 will be, they will provide bread and butter for people who know hardship and hard work.
I turn to the problems of the port of Holyhead, the largest in North Wales. In terms of facilities, the work force and potential, it is one of the best on the western seaboard, and British Railways have invested substantial sums of money in modernising it. I am glad to say that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Wales, following a hearing in Holyhead in September, has recommended to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the proposal of British Railways to end the cattle service with Ireland should be rejected. I shall not enter into detail on that matter because I wish other hon. Members to have the opportunity to speak, but the TUCC's reasons for coming to this conclusion have been sent to my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will receive a copy. I am sure that both of them will give due weight to what the committee says.
We have also held meetings with the Shipping Division of British Railways about the general future of the port. We have been assured that it has a good future, although the economic recession

and the problems in Ireland are creating short-term difficulties.
One new and significant factor is that the recession has hit the container service all round the coast of the United Kingdom very hard indeed. I understand that it is down this year by approximately 20 per cent. This is a serious development. However, the roll on/roll off traffic has held up and, indeed, increased. Moreover, road transport in this period of economic difficulty is proving more attractive than rail. This is a matter which my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially the Minister for Transport, will wish to consider carefully as it has profound implications for future transport policy.
We in Anglesey are determined that Holyhead shall continue to play its historic rôle as a major port for Ireland. It would be criminal to neglect its potential in the interests of short-term expediency. We held a conference on unemployment in Anglesey on 10th October, and my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State, received the report and the recommendations made there. We are especially anxious to know how the Chancellor's proposals of 24th September will help Wales and how quickly they can be brought to bear. I should like to go into the proposals in detail, but I must do so on another occasion.
I must refer to the question of training, which is absolutely vital. We need a much broader training facility in Gwynedd, and this is something for which again I and others have been pressing for some years. I am informed that the Department of Employment is proceeding with plans to improve training in the area, and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he winds up the debate, can give us some idea of the scope of these plans, because they are important for our young people.
We were all glad to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say about the Regional Fund of the EEC. We should like to be told how quickly we shall benefit from the Fund and how the money will be spent. We shall also be glad to have confirmation that the Fund will be deployed through him and through the Welsh Office. I am fortified in my long-held belief that our membership of the EEC will be beneficial to Wales.
I should like to say a few words about the implications of the rundown of primary steelmaking at Shotton. I was glad to hear my hon Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry say during Question Time on Monday that the Government are giving the matter the most careful consideration and that they are taking social as well as economic factors into account. The Shotton problem has been hanging over our heads for many years. There was a time when we heard about the "task force" that was set up by the Conservatives. We heard that it was moving swiftly into action, but we have heard nothing about it since. Large-scale redundancies in Flint would unquestionably affect the whole of North Wales and make our task infinitely more difficult. I am sure that the Government will not be unmindful of this when they come to their conclusions.
Finally, of course, we need studies and strategic plans. I am sure that hon. Members share my experience when I point out that my locker in this House and the drawers of my desk are full of reports published over the years from various sources in Wales. They are like "the leaves in Vallombrosa" and they are as transient and as sere. I want no more reports. I want action. One good industry employing 100 men in my constituency is worth 1,000 reports however well-meaning. Therefore, we have high hopes of the Welsh Development Agency, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Pembroke. We realise that these economic times are less propitious than they might be and there must be limitation to what the Welsh Development Agency can achieve in this climate. All hon. Members realise that. Surely hon. Members of great experience must realise that we cannot expect too much over the next 12 months or so. However, the setting up of the Agency is, I believe, a landmark in Welsh industrial history. Like other hon. Members, I wish it well. We are going through bleak times, but if the will is there on the part of the Government, if there is a more constructive attitude by Opposition parties towards the Government and if local authorities co-operate, there is a chance of success in the foreseeable future.
We must not sell our country down the river. Our people have great qualities

and skills. We have one of the most beautiful countries in the world. I believe that, given the will and constructive support for the Government, we will come out of this difficulty more prosperous than we were before it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that there is only three-quarters of an hour left in this short debate, which must include winding-up speeches. If hon. Members could confine themselves to a maximum of five minutes, it would be most helpful.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Anyone who required further evidence of the need for a Welsh Parliament need look no further than this debate. The first Welsh day for 19 months gives backbench Members about three-quarters of an hour, as I see it, to discuss the whole range of Welsh problems for which we have no other time on the Floor of the House.
I want to refer briefly to three matters. The first concerns the Cleddau Bridge, which collapsed on 2nd June 1970, when four men lost their lives. Four months later a similar box girder bridge collapsed in Australia. The Government then stepped in. That was the beginning of the Government's responsibility for the tremendous escalation in the cost of the Cleddau Bridge.
The Government took a number of decisions. First, they set up the Merrison Committee to consider the design and building of bridges of this kind. The local authority was asked to stay its hand until that committee reported, which was about a year after the collapse of the bridge. The local authority was then asked to abide by the findings of the committee and to adopt the recommendations made by Merrison and his colleagues. Those recommendations added considerably to the material used in the construction and, therefore, to the cost of the bridge and to the years of delay in rebuilding it. Those were years of inflation, so the cost of the whole scheme rose from £3 million to £12 million.
The Cleddau Bridge was used experimentally by the Government. Therefore, it was not unnatural that the


inspector from the Welsh Office who was appointed to conduct an inquiry into the matter should recommend the repayment to the Dyfed Council, which was by now responsible for the bridge, of the extra costs, which it had inherited, of applying the Merrison recommendations.
The Merrison recommendations were applied to a similar bridge at Avon-mouth. The building of the bridge was stayed for two years before the Merrison findings could be applied. That meant an extra cost of £6 million. The Government met that cost without demur. Their excuse for meeting the cost of the Avonmouth Bridge, but not of the Cleddau Bridge, was that one was on a motorway and the other was purely a local government matter.
The Government did not apply that argument to the Ronan Point flats which collapsed. They stepped in to meet the cost, although that was a local authority matter. Apparently there is one rule for a London local authority and another for a Welsh local authority. The Government did not make any fuss about meeting the extra cost of the Ronan Point collapse. They should not be allowed to get away with not meeting the extra cost involved in the Cleddau Bridge collapse in Wales either.
The result of the Government's attitude is that the ratepayers of old Carmarthenshire and old Cardiganshire have had to shoulder an even higher rate burden because of two accidents. The first accident was the collapse of the Cleddau Bridge and the second was their being knocked together with Pembrokeshire into a new authority. They would not have had any responsibility for this burden but for the Government's action. The Government are responsible for the extra cost, but they have refused to meet it.
The ratepayers of Dafydd face an annual charge of £1½ million for rebuilding the bridge. The local authorities could do a great deal with that money to straighten the rural roads in Wales and to allow bulk transporters to move freely. The rates are already too high, and as a result of their intervention the Government are responsible for increasing them. The Government's attitude is dictated by the Treasury. It is a disgracefully mean attitude. On behalf of the ratepayers of

old Carmarthenshire I appeal for a rapid reconsideration of this attitude.
I urge the Government to implement rapidly their decision to establish a Welsh national television service, using the fourth channel. As a result of the Crawford report, the Government accepted the principle of a Welsh national service and set up a working party, which is due to report next month. This is an urgent matter, and I hope that the Government will act quickly. The Welsh language and our Welsh civilisation are at stake. The Government could act effectively by reallocating defence funds to the defence of the Welsh way of life.
The Government should inform the Welsh National Water Authority that it has power under the Water Act 1973 to sell Welsh water. By selling the water at a reasonable price—say 10p per 1,000 gallons—the authority could reduce Welsh rates to the lowest level in Europe instead of them being the highest as at present.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: Although I hope to observe your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that back benchers who hold minority views should have an opportunity of putting views which are relevant to the immediate situation, even though Front Bench speakers have not found it possible to sacrifice their time to allow the limited amount of time which back benchers require on the eve of discussions at Chequers to determine the constitutional future of Wales. Although I shall try to limit myself to the parameters which you have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not promise that I shall be able to complete my remarks in the few minutes suggested.
I represent Pontypool. As a result of the words and actions of the Welsh Office, there is now an insistence that alongside the existing Pontypool road signs there should be others proudly displaying the name Pontypwll. That may sound bewildering to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it will not bewilder those who know Wales and have the advantage of knowing Welsh.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) gave me some advice. However I pronounce "Pontypool"—whether in English or Welsh—it would be impossible for a person who was not a student of phonetics at a Celtic


academy to distinguish between the two. This is not a trivial matter which it may appear to be at first sight. It is not surprising that the Mayor of Torfaen, the district which has Pontypool within its boundaries, a good man who has the advantage of belonging to the 1 per cent. of my constituents who speak Welsh, when confronted with the Welsh's Office suggestion, said publicly that the requirement was "absolutely bloody crazy." In saying that he was echoing the opinion of all my constituents.
Similarly, I have had many letters of protest about the proliferation of new signs on the M4 which my constituents cannot read but which, when interpreted, tell them that there are toilets within half a mile. This displays a certain frivolity which does not correspond to the urgent need to economise to tackle inflation and our economic problems.
I would not stress such matters if they had not happened during a week in which, according to a letter which we all presumably received this morning and which causes grave concern to the people of Gwent, the Post Office has decided that in future two languages—Welsh and English—will be used, but that in each case the Welsh language will be given precedence. I do not know whether the Post Office is yielding to the blackguards who have behaved towards it as a pack of ruffians or whether it is being leaned upon by the Welsh Office. This type of practice is certainly regarded within English-speaking Gwent as highly provocative. Instead of assisting in the maturation of the language, such behaviour results in the public looking at the growth of the language along these lines with great suspicion.
I raise these matters because views are now being canvassed about a Welsh Assembly. Those of us with experience in the House, those of us who have read Dick Crossman's memoirs or discussed matters with him before he, unfortunately, died, know full well, whatever Ministers may say, how important are the civil servants, whom the Secretary of State rightly defended with such vigour. We are well aware that civil servants remain and that Ministers come and go.
When the Secretary of State goes to Chequers this weekend I want him to give—as I am sure he will—not only his per-

sonal opinions but the opinions of back benchers who represent important constituencies. I hope that he will convey the serious concern that is felt that a Welsh Assembly—if it is ever constituted—should have a Civil Service and secretariat in which, as has happened in every other devolved body so far, people must have a command of Welsh if they are to rise in the Civil Service hierarchy.
On behalf of my constituency I wish it to be clearly understood that my constituents would regard it as intolerable that any elitist Civil Service which would be necessary to serve that Assembly should consist of people who are chosen because they have the advantage of being Welsh-speaking, so that people coming from Gwent and similar areas would be excluded because of their lack of command of the language. Those who look after the interests of our English-speaking constituents believe that they should not be regarded as second-class citizens in their own country. Unless there is a copper-bottomed guarantee that the parity of esteem principle will not lead to English-speaking Welshmen being disadvantaged support will not be given by them to any devolved body.
There is, too, a widespread opinion in Gwent and Glamorgan that if powers are given to a devolved body it will inevitably mean a truncation of the number of county councillors and their functions and duties and the possible extinguishment of our district councils. The Tories were responsible for foisting upon us a system of local government which most of us find unsatisfactory, but it is there; it is a fact. If any powers are given to an Assembly, inevitably there will be an extinguishment of some powers of local government. At a time when Wales is wrestling with the acute economic problems and inflation caused by world factors, district councillors and county councillors in South Wales would find utterly unacceptable the creation of an Assembly which would mean yet another upheaval, another tumult, in local government. It would, too, be unfair to the thousands of people now working in local government, who have already had to see their career prospects being put at sixes and sevens, once again to find themselves having a shadow hanging over them. That would be the position if an Assembly came into existence at this moment.
There are matters in Wales that are serious and important. We are having to try to respond to those who have feelings of estrangement and alienation within our community. But it is not through any regional ballot box that solutions to such problems will be found. Let us, for example, consider the situation at Llanwern. Difficulties have arisen because we have not yet found the proper constitutional techniques to ensure that our State-owned industries do not degenerate into State capitalism. We must ensure that they are organisations that belong to the people. If people feel estranged at their work in their jobs they begin to feel lost. That is a problem that will not be resolved by yet another body being set up in Cardiff.
Since we have a greater proportion of nationalised industries in Wales than anywhere else in the country, we should be creating constitutional machinery to make them more accountable again instead of squandering our energies by turning to peripheral problems. We should be dealing with the problem of the multinational companies that exist in Wales. This is not the pejorative talk of some extremist Left-winger. Each and everyone of us, if we are acquainted with the companies within our constituencies, knows full well that decisions are constantly being taken elsewhere which involve jobs and the future of so many of our people in Wales.
In so many companies in my constituency decisions affecting the working lives of my people are being taken abroad. My right hon. and learned Friend has spoken with considerable vigour of the help that is now coming from Europe to Wales. Some could cynically say that he does this with the zeal of a proselyte, for no pamphleteer was more vigorous in his opposition to our entry into Europe. Many of us remember the occasions when he spoke against the Common Market. I would not, however, accuse him of cynicism. I believe the change has come because we have a Secretary of State who is open-minded and not rigid. I hope that he will employ the same open-mindedness and recognise that as a matter of priorities most of us are more concerned with future employment and inflation than with constitutional tinkering.
In many Welsh constituencies there are large numbers of multinationals and conglomerates. The unilateral decisions now taken by the multinationals will not be undermined by the decision-making that may be made by a group of men navel-gazing in Cardiff, pretending that they are determining the future of Wales; we require, in fact, a new constitutional approach within Europe which will lead to the containing of the manner of decision-making which now can be so disruptive to the lives of our people.
I hope that the Secretary of State has the message clearly. I do not speak for myself alone when I say that there is a considerable apprehension throughout the Labour movement of South Wales. At a time when we should be dealing with the acute difficulties of unemployment and the difficulties arising from the world recession, the Labour movement does not want to see us squandering our energies and efforts in a constitutional device which, whatever its merits, may be irrelevant to our real problems. I hope that the Secretary of State when he presents his views at Chequers will tell those with whom he is meeting that there are those of us who do not regard our Socialism as something which must degenerate into a narrow miserable chauvinism.
We came into this party in some cases—people like me—40 years ago influenced by men like Nye Bevan, who would not even attend a Welsh Parliamentary Party meeting because he believed that miners were miners whether they were in Pontypool or Durham. He believed that nylon workers, whether they were in Pontypool or Harrogate, had a common interest. The truth is that it would be a sorry and sad day if we were misled into believing that by taking a regressive step into chauvinism we could resolve the problems of Wales. If we did that we would be violating the principle of internationalism which brought us into this party, a principle which some of us intend to maintain to the end of our political careers.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I begin by adding my tribute to the late James Griffiths, whom I had the pleasure of knowing personally over a number of years. I heard him speak on a number of occasions. One of his thoughts has


been hovering in my mind in the past few minutes. It was a thought that he put to me in the 1960s; namely, that the 1930s were not all that far away from us. We would all agree that his passing is certainly symbolic of the passing of an era.
As might have been expected, much of the debate has centred on the grim condition of the Welsh economy and the dark outlook for the coming months. Although we tend to paint the picture with figures and percentages, we are all deeply aware of the human misery lying behind the scene. We are all deeply aware of the demoralising effect of unemployment on the individual and the uphappiness it brings to every family it affects. We are aware of the gnawing fear of unemployment among those still at work who are surrounded by rumour of closure and redundancy.
As the Secretary of State said, we live in a difficult and worrying time, a time when some of us are questioning whether old remedies still work and—if they do help us overcome our present difficulties—whether they will help us in the future. The OECD has just established a group to look into the policy issues involved in the pursuit of non-inflationary economic growth and high employment levels. That is a combination we all want in the future. But it is so far from our grasp now that it sounds like a Utopian dream.
What has happened here as elsewhere is that growth has faltered badly. We are faced with a high rate of inflation, unacceptable levels of unemployment and continuing pressure for increased public expenditure. The factors in this situation are much worse in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) pointed out when he spoke of the appalling decline in output in the second quarter of this year and the current 6·9 per cent. level of unemployment—nearly twice what it was a year ago.
The Government are under strong pressure to adopt reflationary measures. The pressure is likely to grow as the winter progresses and unemployment worsens. The Government cannot reflate, even if they wanted to. Inflation is so high and the public sector borrowing requirement so great that the Chancellor dare not tell us how much it is. While

I blame the Government for having got themselves into this situation by their profligate spending last year and the high wage settlements allowed under the social contract, I find those who are pressing for reflation now to be culpable in the extreme. It would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. They must know that or they are abysmally ignorant of the economic facts of life.
We on the Conservative side have been attacked for demanding cuts in public expenditure at a time of rising unemployment. It is also a time when Government spending is rising faster than Government revenue. In the first six months of this year Government spending rose by 47 per cent. and revenue by only 31 per cent. Local authority spending is also up by 40 per cent. in this financial year.
We know that there must be cuts. The Secretary of State agrees. He is carrying out certain cuts himself in health, education and the social services, as he told us. The Government agree that there must be cuts but hope to postpone the worst of them until the recovery in world trade. They are rather like St. Augustine with his prayer, to the Lord to save him, "but not yet".
What we object to in particular are sums such as the £40 million to £60 million to be spent on the Land Authority for Wales. It is unnecessary spending. It is also a very bad example to set to other authorities on which the Government are urging restraint.
Then there is the Welsh Development Agency, which is also to spend millions of pounds, and which, by the Secretary of State's own admission in the Welsh Grand Committee, is unlikely to be directly helpful in the present employment crisis. I do not think it is going to be particularly helpful later on, either, for reasons that I shall give in a moment or two.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not object to the Government measures that act directly on employment and do not appreciably increase the public sector borrowing requirement. The relief of unemployment, especially among school leavers, must have a high priority, and I have urged the Government to do more to provide training courses, especially at technical colleges, where the demand for places this year has been high


and far in excess of the places available in my constituency and on its borders.
We object to unnecessary spending by the Labour Government simply in order to carry out their manifesto, which they did not even bother to cost. How right my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was to say that what we are experiencing is a crisis of Socialism. That crisis might be even more painful in Wales, where a higher proportion of our people are employed in the public sector than in the rest of the United Kingdom, if our people were not temporarily cushioned and protected by the wholly illusory strength of the public sector.
What hope do the Government hold out for us? They pin their faith on a revival in world trade. The Prime Minister spoke of it in the debate five months ago, when he said:
There is reason to begin to hope that some of our major trading partners are, or shortly will be, moving out of the worst depth of their own recession into a period of expansion.
Later he went on to say:
Because of this and, indeed, the most recent action taken only today by Germany there seem to be good reasons for hoping that the recovery in world trade-will have got under way by the end of this year and will be accelerating next year."—[Official Report, 22nd May, 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1662.]
What has happened to those hopes? They have certainly faded. Their fulfilment has been postponed. I wonder whether those hopes were ever justified in the first place. Was it ever right that we should have been put in the position where we in this country were dependent on reflationary action by other countries suffering from high unemployment and cuts in public expenditure themselves last year, while we were being told to count ourselves lucky not to be suffering as much?
My personal view is that the Government are very unwise to rely too much on the revival in world trade. Granted that there will be such a revival, I doubt whether it will be of such a nature as to make an appreciable difference to our problems. Our problems are with us to stay, and the sooner the Government recognise it the better.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman believes he has an important part of the answer to the economic problems in the Welsh Development Agency, just as his colleagues believe that they have part of

the answer to the problems of the United Kingdom in the National Enterprise Board. They believe that these instruments are the proper means to secure greater investment in industry, which is certainly an essential objective. However, the Government's financial strategy is wrong, because if the public sector borrowing requirement is increased next year as planned, partly to finance the Welsh Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board, it is questionable whether there will be sufficient money left to finance the economic recovery for which the Government hope. In other words, the Government's deeply laid plan to finance industry through these Agencies and to extend public ownership will starve the economy of the capacity to recover when the up-swing in world trade finally comes.
There is a great and real danger that the up-swing will not be of the 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. order that was anticipated by the Prime Minister in May, but that it may be smaller and pass us by because we shall not be in a position to take advantage of it.
Therefore, first, the Government have to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement and cut out unnecessary spending on their pet schemes for extending public ownership. Some Government supporters are beginning to realise that their public ownership plans simply will not result in adequate investment within the right time scale, so they are turning to the private sector and urging that sector to invest. The truth of the matter is that with interest rates as high as they are, with the Government sucking in every penny they can to cover their deficit, and with inflation running at 25 per cent., profitable investment is virtually an impossibility.
Neither can the private sector borrow too extensively from the Government because the cost ultimately has to be borne by that sector. That cost is such that it inhibits profitability. Labour Members have brought this situation on their own heads, and on their heads be it and all the consequences.
There is little prospect for the recovery of the Welsh economy under this Government. They have reduced it to the deplorable condition it is in today, with industrial output 10 per cent. down in the second quarter as against the first quarter


of this year and with unemployment standing at 6.9 per cent. of the population, and likely to rise still further. Responsibility for Wales lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), whose name will go down in Welsh history as having presided over this disastrous situation. He had the audacity to quote the epitaph of Sir Christopher Wren "Si monumentum quaeris circumspice". There is a much better direct translation—"If you require a monument, look around you". The Secretary of State's monument is Wales, the ruined Wales that lies about him today.

10.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): By tradition, Ministers replying to Welsh debates usually have to say that they will write to Opposition Members because time is short. Those hon. Members who were fortunate enough to speak today will understand that much of what I should have liked to say to them will have to be done through the medium of the written word.
I understand the interest and desire to have had a longer debate today. If the Opposition had agreed that the Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill could have been taken in Comittee, that would have given us longer for debate on the Floor of the House. Hon. Gentlemen know this to be true.
Some hon. Members have said that we have had no Welsh Day debates since March, 1974. I would remind them that, although we may not have had specific Welsh debates, many issues vital to the people of Wales have been discussed in this Chamber on many occasions since then. This year there has been more legislation concerning Wales than ever before. I would remind the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that not one hon. Member of his party spoke throughout the whole of the Report stage of the Community Land Bill, a Bill which is of major significance to the people of Wales.
Most hon. Members who took part in the debate rightly referred to the serious problem of unemployment. I do not object to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) reminding me of the repugnance which I have expressed over high and unnecessary levels of unemploy-

ment. I hope that if ever I forget it the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) will remind me.

Mr. Michael Roberts: We shall.

Mr. Jones: Whenever the House ceases to be concerned about unemployment it will be ceasing to fulfil one of its major purposes. When Labour Members cease to fight against unemployment they will have betrayed the people who support them.
In the fight against unemployment we have one hand tied behind our backs. It is tied firmly that position by the shackles of inflation. That is why it was right for my right hon. and learned Friend to emphasise that it is essential to control inflation. I do not want to appear complacent, but I should like to give greater detail of Government measures. My right hon. and learned Friend referred briefly to the September measures, which no one claims will solve the problem of unemployment, but which will at least mitigate its worst effects. It is too early to say what impact they will have.
The recruitment subsidy for school leavers introduced on 13th October could assist up to 35,000 young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) asked about training. The additional allocation for training programmes should enable the Training Services Agency to provide up to 8,000 extra training places. The additional grant to encourage worker mobility could enable up to 8,000 people to take advantage of the employment transfer scheme. The Manpower Services Commission work relation scheme became operational on 20th October, with a unit specially set up in Cardiff. Although they are not the answer, those short-term measures will be of considerable benefit to many of the people of Wales.
But we are not concerned only with the short term. We must think of the medium term. My right hon. and learned Friend's endeavours in this field are designed to ensure that when the upturn of the economy takes place Wales will be in a more favourable position to take advantage of it. That is why he announced with justifiable pride the advance factory programme that he announced today.
Apart from that programme, we have proceeded with the advance purchase of land so that we can speed up factory building. A total of 130 acres is to be purchased, with sites ranging from two and a half acres to 30 acres, distributed throughout Wales. We are embarked on the extension of Government industrial estates, authorised or completed, which will bring an additional 400 acres to be used for industry in Wales.
But we also face long-term problems. That is why it was necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend to find new tools. There can be no full solution to the unemployment problem of Wales without considerably strengthening the impact of the Government's regional policies. That is what the Welsh Development Agency will do. No one has pretended that the Agency can solve all our problems. But those who opposed giving it any real powers were saying that they believed that those policies which had failed Wales in the past should be given the opportunity to fail Wales again. I do not believe that the people of Wales would accept that.
The hon. Member for Pembroke spelt out the unemployment figures with some relish—

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: No more than the hon. Gentleman used to.

Mr. Jones: I heard the way the hon. Gentleman said it.

Mr. Edwards: And we heard the way the hon. Gentleman said it.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's answer would be to rely on the same Tory measures and philosophies as have never solved the problems of Wales in the past. They led to the population of my constituency being reduced from 160,000 to 85,000. The Tories have never learned. They never seek to change or improve.
We shall overcome inflation and the high unemployment associated with it because the Government's policies are recognised by the people as being fair and necessary and because they will command the support and co-operation of the majority of the people.
The hon. Member for Pembroke suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was an expert in hypo-

crisy. The hon. Member talked about Concorde, but I do not recall the Opposition voting against Concorde. He talked about nationalisation, but can he tell me what sums we have spent on nationalisation under any legislation introduced by us? The hon. Member talked about what we should be doing and he mentioned Shotton, but it was a Conservative administration that endorsed the BSC strategy which has posed the threat to continued steelmaking at Shotton. We are doing the heart-searching on the consequences of the Tories' decision which threatens 7,000 jobs in Shotton. Little wonder we consider it necessary to take our time to consider a matter which could have far-reaching and painful consequences for the people employed there. Had it been left to a Tory Government, those jobs would have disappeared.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) raised a number of issues, including the selling of Welsh water. This subject was dealt with by the Daniel report, which did not come to any agreed conclusions. We have set up an inter-departmental committee to give priority to working out such matters as a fair charging system for Welsh water to ensure that the people of Wales have a fair return. It is dangerously attractive to suggest that by selling water to England we could solve all our problems. In many instances, far from benefiting, the people of Wales would lose in consequence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey asked about Bangor hospital. Tenders for the first phase of the new district general hospital have been invited and the closing date is mid-November. It is hoped that building will begin in 1976. I will write to my right hon. Friend on the other points he raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), my colleague as Undersecretary, has been notable in the campaign he has waged on behalf of his constituents and his concern over the problems at Shotton. No Minister in the Welsh Office is unmindful of the needs and problems of Wales. We are not complacent. Many of our own cherished hopes and highest aspirations have had to be put aside temporarily.
Unless we overcome the inflation which is ravaging our economy, not only will the needs of the people, as spelled out


today, not be met, but the level of services will actually fall catastrophically. Anyone who suggests that there is a simple or painless way out of our problems is doing a disservice to the people of Wales.

It being Eleven o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 1

PAYMENTS BY BRITISH FILM FUND AGENCY TO NATIONAL FILM FINANCE CORPORATION.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shersby: During the Second Reading debate the Under-Secretary of State emphasised that the Secretary of State is required to consult the Cinematograph Films Council in every case before approving a payment to the National Film Finance Corporation or, for that matter, the three other bodies concerned, the British Film Institute, the National Film School and the Children's Film Foundation. This we know is an established procedure that has worked well in the past.
But payments by the NFFC to those involved in script writing and other pre-production expenses are to be made on the advice of a new advisory committee to be set up by the Secretary of State. We also know that the advisory committee is not mentioned in Clause 1 because it is advisory to the NFFC, with which the Department of Trade has its relationship. In fact, as I understand it, the advisory committee will not have the power to make a loan itself, only to advise the NFFC to do so. In other words, the NFFC will apparently have the power to veto the advisory committee's recommendations if it wants to.
I am sure that this is normal, but it causes me some concern because, as the

Minister said on Second Reading, the NFFC is not experienced in making films, although it has tremendous experience in financing them. Presumably in practice the relationship will be between the advisory committee and the officials of the NFFC, and it will be the officials of the Corporation who will advise the board if ever it is necessary to veto an application which they think is unsound.
That brings me to the constitution of the advisory committee. Clearly, if it is to be a good committee it will need to be comprised of people who are both expert in their knowledge of film production and in tune with the ideas of the younger, less experienced and less-well-known producers who it is intended will be the main beneficiaries of the new fund that is brought into effect by Clause 1.
I hope, therefore, that the Undersecretary of State will have very much in mind the need to appoint some young people to membership of the advisory committee. That will make for a more representative group, and it will mean that the younger and enthusiastic film producers in the British film industry will feel that the advisory committee has a good knowledge of the kind of films that they are trying to make—new and exciting films which we hope will increase our export earnings.
Finally, I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State would say whether the payment made out of the £200,000 fund will be reported in due course in the NFFC's annual report.

11.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has well outlined the provisions of the clause. He said something about the relationship between the advisory committee and the NFFC, and I endorse his view of that.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the composition of the advisory committee, and here I think he has a good point. We have not yet considered the sort of people who should go on the advisory commitee but, as a relatively young person, I assure the hon. Gentleman that this will predominate our thinking. The type of people, as well as the organisations from which they are chosen, will be important for the success of this scheme.
If, for example, we were to appoint people of middle age and older and no young people, there might be a prejudice against certain younger writers and producers. I do not think that is likely, but at least it is possible and might be thought likely. I shall do my best when appointments are made by the Secretary of State to ensure that they will include, as far as possible, some young people.
On the hon. Member's third point about the NFFC report, certainly the NFFC will be reporting separately in its annual report on the disbursements from the fund, since mat is a special fund distinguishable in its accounts. It needs to be reported on separately.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third Time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).

SEA FISHERIES

That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (No. 2) Scheme 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July, be approved.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Revenue Duties) (The Overseas Countries and Territories) Order 1975 (S. I., 1975, No. 1267), a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the Local Government (Reduction of General Grant) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th August, be approved.

That the Child Benefit (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 (S. I., 1975, No. 1504) a copy of

which was laid before this House on 26th September, be approved.

That the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 (S. I., 1975, No. 1503), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th September, be approved.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Neville Trotter: The efficiency of the Post Office is the subject of this debate, and I believe that the efficient running of this huge organisation is essential not only to the efficiency of the whole of the business and commerce of the country but to the normal life of individual citizens who use the telephone and postal systems.
We have in our Post Office the benefit of a particularly good staff. It is, therefore, all the more distressing that one feels the need to call attention to the lack of efficiency in the Post Office at this time. For long it has been held in high regard but today the public have lost confidence and the good will built up over many years has been eroded, not least by the shambles of the Post Office finances over the last few months. It has become the biggest loss-maker in the country and has given rise to the biggest price increases. In two years postal charges have doubled and the cost of telephone calls has trebled. At the same time with inflation retail prices have risen substantially, but only by 44 per cent.
In particular, the cost to doctors of changing calls from their surgeries to another doctor has risen by 750 per cent. I am told by the British Medical Association that the letter which contained that proposal took 12 days to cross London to reach its offices. As a result, the Association was not given adequate time to express its views.
No wonder that as a result of the increases the public are up in arms at the state of affairs in the Post Office, because higher charges are not accompanied by a greater efficiency. While statistics are


quoted by the Post Office as to the efficiency of the normal service, it does not mention that 3 million letters at least are late in being delivered each day. It is said that every day 2 million telephone calls go wrong, but I suspect that the total is far higher. I understand that those 2 million are instances when people bother to notify the operator that they have not been able to get through. I know from experience that rather than tell the operator one often simply redials.
It is no wonder that there are doubts about the efficiency of the management of the Post Office when we read of extraordinary cases such as the telephone exchanges which apparently were vacated and abandoned by their staff in the middle of the night.
At the same time, there seems to be an extraordinary lack of sensitivity in dealings between the Post Office and the public. For example, recently the Post Office refused to accept the suggestion that Christmas cards should be posted at a special concessionary rate of 5p. It was suggested that special stamps be printed which would be valid only if used two weeks before Christmas. Not only would that have enabled many people of modest means to send Christmas cards without undue hardship but it would surely have helped the Post Office by ensuring a steadier flow of mail and reducing the Christmas peak.
The Post Office spends millions of pounds a year on public relations, but the money seems to be wasted. While the Post Office depends for its living on communications it is dismally bad in its own communicating with its customers. The image of the Post Office is such that there is an impression of complacency at the top.
The Chairman of the Post Office speaks of how great its achievement is in delivering 35 million letters a day on time, but he does not refer to the 3 million letters a day which are held up. He speaks of the problems of delivering letters and connecting telephone calls; but we are living in 1975, not 1875. Surely things which were taken for granted 75 or 100 years ago can be achieved today.
The Post Office relies on being bailed out by the taxpayer or on using its monopoly to extort higher prices, but it is

becoming apparent that there is now a danger of a vicious circle developing. It is possible that there will be so great a fall in the demand for its services as a result of the enormous price increases that there will be an overall fall in its income. Why do we not know the fall in demand for its services since the increases made earlier this year and a few weeks ago? Is it a secret, or, as I suspect, is it that the Post Office does not know? I am told that the Post Office does not count the number of business letters, which is a very large proportion of the total, other than once a year, which is incredible if true.
The Minister announced two months ago that there was to be an inquiry into the Post Office. I welcome, and I believe that the public welcome, that announcement, but when are we to have details of the nature and form of the inquiry? Two months have passed and nothing has been said about that matter. Is the Post Office being difficult over the terms? Certainly it was not noticeably enthusiastic about earlier suggestions that there should be an inquiry. Could it be that there have been arguments between the Department of Industry and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection about the form and nature of the inquiry?
I hope that the Minister will tonight give an assurance that the inquiry will be public and that the findings will be published. I hope that the inquiry will be regarded by all the Post Office staff as being constructive and will not be regarded as a witch-hunt. There is grave concern about the Post Office, and we must consider all options open to us not only in the interests of the users but in the long-term interests of the staff. The Post Office is fortunate in that it is dealing with men like Mr. Tom Jackson, whose quoted remarks show him to have a sane and responsible attitude to the problems of the Post Office.
There are many matters which, I suggest, should be considered by the inquiry. First, can the aims for the Post Office set out in the Post Office Act be reconciled between providing a commercial service and a social service? Are they irreconcilable? Perhaps they are.
Secondly, should the postal and telephone systems be run as quite separate bodies? I suggest that at present the Post Office is too large, and it may well


be that there should be two separate corporations, one for posts and one for telephones.
Thirdly, have we got the best pattern of services in the changed circumstances of today? What, for instance, is the best split between first and second class mail? Sometimes we have 30 per cent. first class and sometimes 50 per cent. So far as I am aware, there has never been any statement by the Post Office about what it regards as being the optimum split from the point of view of its own efficiency and the minimisation of costs.
Those matters lead me, fourthly to the whole question of operating efficiency, labour costs, overheads and capital. The whole matter needs a searching inquiry and there must be no sacred cows.
Fifthly, the inquiry must look at the requirements of sound financial control, and sixthly, at the relationship between the Post Office and the Government.
I should like for a moment to elaborate on some points relating to operational efficiency. The Post Office Users' National Council has stated that in its opinion there is considerable scope for greater efficiency without a lowering of service. Unhappily it has reported that it sees no evidence of a realisation by the Post Office of the vital need to act in this direction.
Turning to mechanisation, we are delighted that at last union opposition has been overcome and the mechanisation programme is to proceed on the postal side. However, it is intriguing to note that the public has been conned over the last three years into using postal codes the vast majority of which have been of no use whatever to the postmen or anyone else.
The question of part-time labour plainly must be considered on the postal side. In some places part-timers are used on a substantial scale because of working practices adopted during or before the last war. They provide a valuable economic means of overcoming the peak hours that are one of the poblems of the Post Office when short periods of extra work are required. I believe that should be applicable thoughout the system and not just in some towns for historical reasons.
On overheads, I query the amount being spent on telecommunications research. I understand that the expenditure is much the same as that for building one nuclear

submarine a year. Are we being too elaborate in the type of research we are carrying out? Are we aiming at over-elaborate inter-satellite communications around the world?
There is also the question of marketing. On the postal side a staggering number of people are unaware of the nature of all the services that are available to them. I do not believe that the marketing side has been effective. On the telephone side, all too many people's experience has been that the Post Office operates as a monopoly and that one must take it or leave it when it comes to marketing.
The cost of the billing of the telephone system is £38 million per year. If it was carried out at four-monthly intervals instead of quarterly there would be a saving of some £10 million per year.
There is enormous capital spending. Why must telephones be connected within houses or offices by the Post Office? Why cannot the Post Office simply provide the wiring. If one buys a gas fire one connects it up to the gas main provided by the gas board. Why cannot the same system operate with the Post Office? That would save a lage amount of capital expenditure.
In general, the Post Office has relied far too much in the past on the completely antiquated Strowger system of switching gear in its telephone exchanges. This system was originally introduced by an undertaker in America about a century ago. He managed to drum up a lot of business by installing his own automatic exchange. He must have had less difficulty providing capital than we are experiencing today in modern society. In any event, the result of our continuing with completely antiquated switchgear has meant that we are making equipment for which there is no demand in any other part of the world. This substantially and severely affects the export capability of too many of our manufacturers. Only two weeks ago in my constituency a factory closed which for years had carried on the manufacture of this antiquated equipment for which there is no demand abroad.
Poor financial control is one of the most important weaknesses of the Post Office at present. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a practising accountant. I am horrified to see year after year the Post


Office's accounts qualified by distinguished auditors. Again this year there was unsatisfactory control over the Giro system, although to be fair it was to a smaller extent than in the past. Even so, there should not be unsatisfactory control in an organisation such as the Post Office or qualifications in the report of its auditors.
The accounting practice on the Giro side seems odd. Giro is shown as having made a profit of £64,000 only by writing back over £2½ million of unneeded provision which was made in the previous year against possible losses on investments. Many of us would say that the true result of Giro for the year was not a profit of £64,000 but a loss of £2½ million—a somewhat different interpretation.
It is incredible that a business of the size and importance of the Post Office should have operated for no less than 15 months without any finance director. I suspect that the lack of that vital appointment had something to do with the shambles which emerged earlier this year in the overall finances of the Post Office. It is no wonder that the losses came out six times greater than was originally thought. My profession has its uses from time to time.
Finally, I should like to deal with the Government's relationship with the Post Office. First, I comment briefly on the extraordinary situation regarding the pension fund. The last Postmaster-General, the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), was responsible for setting up the Post Office pension fund. It seems that his financial judgment was very unsound in this matter. The pension fund was set up, as has now proved to be the case, with inadequate funds to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds invested hypothetically in a complicated way in Consols, which are about the worst possible investment for a pension fund.
I believe that the Government have a real commitment to undertake the funding of the Post Office's pension scheme up to the date on which it became a separate undertaking. In this year the expenses of the Post Office would have been cut by £90 million or its income would have increased by £90 million if the Government had done that.
The Government's rôle in their relationship with the Post Office is very un-

satisfactory. They must have been aware of the major troubles facing the Post Office, but did nothing. It may be said that they were not aware of those troubles. They can have it one way or the other. Either they were aware and did nothing or they were not aware. I suggest that one is nearly as bad as the other.
The Government gave advice to the Post Office on the subject of inflation and growth. As a result, the Post Office's assumptions were wildly out. Again, I suggest that the Government must accept responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The Post Office made substantial payments to its employees, which the Secretary of State admitted he knew were in breach of the social contract, and nothing was done about them. To a large extent, the extra financial costs of the Post Office were due to that breach of the social contract of which the Secretary of State was aware but did nothing.
The Government appear to have been badly informed and to have been as shocked as the public as the results when the whole mess became apparent. Again, they may say that it was not a shock, that they knew and took no action. A senior civil servant at the Department of Industry has said that it was not the Department's job to do the Post Office's sums. But, if the Post Office gets its sums wrong, who is to check? The Minister has power under the Post Office Act to intervene, but I understand that that power has never been used.
Some people would say that those responsible for the present state of the Post Office should be fired. Is it not also fair to say that, as the Government are partly to blame, there should be some firing there, too?
I ask the Minister to give an undertaking tonight that there will be a full review, without any holds barred, of the Post Office's affairs and that there will be no further increases in charges until that review has been completed and published. Surely the public are entitled to know that all options have been properly considered and that they are getting value for money. At present, whether rightly or wrongly, people do not believe that to be the case.

11.24 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) may believe it or not, but I am grateful to him for raising this matter tonight. It is useful to have these discussions about the Post Office.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my rôle. As I have said time and again in the House, I am no longer the Postmaster-General. I am the Minister of State at the Department of Industry. I have very strong views, as many hon. Members have, about the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the chairmen of nationalised industries. I will deal with that matter later in my comments. However, it is no part of my function to run the Post Office. Indeed, I do not think that any one of us would want that.
I appreciate the comments made by the hon. Gentleman about the staff of the Post Office. They carry out a difficult job, often in very trying circumstances. That being so, it is useful from time to time to say that the staff who operate under such conditions enjoy the benefit of our support.
I was a little disappointed at parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He either does not understand or does not want to understand some of the difficulties of the Post Office. These are not difficulties which have simply grown up in the past year and a half. These difficulties have been faced for many years by the people dealing with these matters.
The hon. Gentleman said that the tariffs had increased at an alarming rate. He must recognise that the combined effects of an unprecedented rate of inflation and prolonged price restraint have led to very heavy losses by the Post Office. He will concede that the Conservative administration must bear full responsibility for the prolonged price restraint in the Post Office. Government subsidies needed to maintain Post Office services in the financial year ending 31st March 1975 had grown to unacceptable levels. That level of subsidisation is liable to affect morale at all levels in the industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that as much as I do. We were determined, both in the national financial interest and in the more immediate

interests of the industry, to get back to economic pricing. That is what the Chancellor explained in his Budget Statement.
The aim of economic pricing policies is to ensure that the consumer pays for the true costs of the goods and services that he consumes in every case where they can be sensibly identified, and that these costs should include an appropriate return on public capital invested in the industries. It was the former administration's departure from these policies which put the Post Office tariffs at an uneconomic level in the years 1971 to 1974 and created the substance of the problem of which the hon. Member complains tonight.
The Post Office, like other nationalised industries, had to catch up. The hon. Gentleman must accept that to maintain efficient services the full economic cost of providing them must be borne either by the users of these services or, in the absence of an economic pricing policy, by the taxpayer. It is the Government's view, and one which I have held in both Government and Opposition, that the user should pay, although always consistent with the social obligations of which the Post Office is conscious. I should have thought that the rôle which we now seek for the Post Office on economic pricing would have appealed to the Opposition in view of the effect it has on the level of public expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman raised one or two other issues in addition to the general problem of finance. He mentioned the number of complaints received from the medical people about the increase in the transfer call charge from 4p to 30p under the new tariffs. In the past this service was operated at an uneconomically low rate. This exceptional increase, as the hon. Gentleman described it, is justified by the need to recover the cost of making the transfers. He said that the General Medical Council had not made representations. We said to the doctors recently that, although we understand and have some sympathy with their problem, they can raise this matter with the Post Office Users' National Council and with the Post Office authorities. The Post Office has developed an alternative automatic subscriber-controlled transfer system which it advises will be cheaper for substantial users of this facility. I do not wish to


say too much about it, but it is a service of which doctors will be aware. The Post Office will have noted the doctors' concern and will do something about it.
I will deal briefly with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the efficiency of the service. In an organisation as large as the Post Office, which is dependent to a large extent on transport and other services outside its control, a failure rate of even a small fraction of 1 per cent. runs into many thousands of unsatisfactory transactions. The Post Office is never complacent about the quality of its service, nor about its operating performance, and it is taking all practical steps to improve both. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is a difficult task, and we must bear with the Post Office at this time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Strowger and the Post Officer's equipment. I remember that when I was in opposition I pressed the then Minister for changes. We did not get them until 1973. I have been making speeches on the subject for many years. In considering the equipment used by the Post Office we should be conscious of jobs and the opportunity for exports. Considerable efforts are made by the Post Office, in conjunction with the industry, to improve export performance. The Post Office has made considerable efforts to improve exports to the Middle East and other countries. Decisions have taken a long time, and we must allow the Post Office, with its technical expertise, to work with the Government in deciding on equipment. I am heavily dependent on the advice of my colleagues with technical expertise. This is a matter which lies within the judgment of the Post Office.
On the subject of telecommunications, in the past financial year, in which 1·35 million telephone connections were added to the service, only 2 per cent. of local calls and 4·7 per cent. of trunk calls dialled direct by the consumer failed because of faulty equipment.

Mr. Trotter: Those are the faults reported to the exchange. I suggest that, especially with local calls, many people do not bother to report a fault but just dial again, so that the Post Office is not aware of the fault.

Mr. Mackenzie: We cannot quantify it. We cannot argue about it. I do not know how often the hon. Gentleman gets a wrong number and does nothing about it. Perhaps I am more conscious of these matters, but if I get a wrong number I let the Post Office know.
We tend to exaggerate the difficulties. The figures are impressive. The number of local calls increased this year by 6·4 per cent., the number of trunk calls by 8·2 per cent., and international calls—which are important to people who are involved in international trade—increased by 19 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman will also be pleased to learn that combined telecommunications productivity improvements resulted this year in considerable savings of over £15 million. He will also realise that the Post Office—one of the largest employers in the United Kingdom, with a huge investment programme—is particularly vulnerable to the twin hazards of high inflation—the cost of labour and interest rates.
I had hoped to say a great deal about the postal services. Suffice to say that every postal service in the world has difficulties at present. The steps taken by the Post Office in mechanisation and the recent agreements with the Post Office unions concerning the introduction of women and other matters are very helpful. Tom Jackson and his colleagues in the Union of Post Office Workers and Brian Stanley of the Post Office Engineering Union have been very responsible. The unions have always taken every possible step to help the Post Office and the consumers.
The hon. Gentleman suggests by implication that the cost of the services is pricing the Post Office out of existence. It is a fair point and one which the Post Office takes very seriously. The Post Office does not believe—and it is in the best position to make this kind of operational judgment—that that situation has been reached, and the statistics appear to bear that out. The increased postal tariffs which took effect on 17th March this year represented a weighted average increase in inland postal charges of 50 per cent. Yet in August this year the volume of traffic was down on the volume in August 1974 by only 6·3 per cent. This


was, if anything, slightly smaller than the Post Office had allowed for in its calculations.
As to the most recent round of increases that the hon. Member mentioned, the Post Office estimates that letter traffic over the 12 months from the introduction of the increases will be about 3½ per cent. lower than would otherwise have been the case, but it is still too early to make even the most preliminary assessment of how traffic has actually responded since. We must all remember that, although the Post Office regrets losing traffic, whatever the cause, it would clearly be a mistake for it to try to maintain traffic levels by providing services at a loss. Indeed, one could go further and argue that some of the traffic that the Post Office is now losing would never have existed in the first place had it not been for past under-pricing forced on the Post Office by price restraint.
The hon. Member made one or two comments about the Post Office fund. No matter what was decided by the last- ever Postmaster-General, we have had some four and a half years in which something could have been done to change that decision. I remember the matter being raised by my hon. Friend who is now the Minister of State for the Civil Service, but nothing was done at that time. I came to the problem last year, and it is not unreasonable to say that I have had to give the matter some thought, as have other Ministers. How ever—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adourned at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.